AJAY Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State. Opposite party No. 2 was served sufficiently but he did not appear before this Court. Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 1.11.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bareilly and the order of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board dated 6.9.2014 passed in Case Crime No. 172 of 2014 under sections 364, 302 and 201 I.P.C. Police Station Bhuta, District Bareilly rejecting the bail application of the Juvenile revisionist.

(2.) It has been alleged that the deceased aged about 21 years left his house on 12.7.2014 at 7.30 p.m. He could not be traced, hence, the respondent lodged a missing report. Later on, the name of revisionist came into picture. The revisionist was declared a juvenile, vide order dated 27.8.2014 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly. The bail application of the revisionist was rejected, vide order dated 6.9.2014 after obtaining police report and report of District Probation Officer. The Juvenile filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, which was also dismissed. The Sessions Judge, while dismissing the appeal of the revisionist, held that there was every likelihood of the delinquent juvenile to come in association with criminals which would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger.

(3.) Castigating the impugned Judgment, learned Counsel for the revisionist has argued that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that if the juvenile revisionist is released on bail then his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. He has further submitted that gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline bail to a person who has been declared juvenile and which order has attained finality. Counsel for the revisionist has further contended that the learned Courts below in quite cursory manner have declined bail to the revisionist which orders are not based upon definite facts but are based on surmises and conjectures. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has contended that considering the nature of the offence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. It has also been contended that the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in declining the bail to the petitioner and also the Judgment passed by the Appellate Court upholding the order of the Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board are based on materials on record.