BHURE Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both the revisions arise out of the same incident, hence, are being decided by one order. These revisions have been filed against the orders dated 1. 4. 08 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Farrukhabad in case no. 27/07 arising out of crime no. 499/06, under Sections 302, 323, 504, IPC and in case no. 10/07 arising out of crime no. 502/06, under Section 25/27, Arms Act, P. S. Kampil, District Farrukhabad and 30. 4. 08 passed by the Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in criminal appeal nos. 23/08 and 22/08 whereby both the courts refused to grant bail to the revisionist. Vide order dated 1. 4. 08 the accused-revisionist was refused bail by the Juvenile Justice Board, Farrukhabad in crime no. 499/06, under Sections 302, 323, 504, IPC and in crime no. 502/06, under Section 25/27, Arms Act. When the appeals were preferred, these were dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad vide order dated 30. 4. 08. It appears from the record that for an incident revisionist along with his father was challaned in crime no. 499/06, under Sections 302, 323, 504, IPC and in crime no. 502/06, under Section 25/27, Arms Act. The allegations against the revisionist was that he on the exhortation of his father committed the murder of the son of the complainant Ajay Pal with a rifle. The revisionist was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, Farrukhabad. When he moved applications for bail in both the crime numbers, both the applications were rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Farrukhabad on the ground that the release may drag the revisionist in criminal activities due to which he would be exposed to moral, psychological and physical danger and the interest of justice would also fail. When the rejection orders were challenged in appeals, these were dismissed on the ground that the revisionist would come in association with known criminal, if released on bail. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. It has been argued by Mr. Tripathi that the authorities below were wrong in rejecting the prayer for bail. There was no material to reject the prayer for bail on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). According to Mr. Tripathi, for finding a case for rejection of bail on the ground that the release is likely to bring the child delinquent in association with known criminals it must be established that the juvenile will likely join the company of a known criminal. Pendency of only one case against the father of the revisionist and only one case against the revisionist cannot fulfill this condition i. e. the association with known criminals. For appreciating the argument of Mr. Tripathi it would be necessary to see as to what the word "association" used in Section 12 of the Act conveys. The word "association" has been defined in Concise Oxford Dictionary (Sixth Edition) as an act of associating; organized body of persons for a joint purpose; fellowship, companionship; mental connection between related ideas. The above meaning of the word "association" has also been adopted in Legal Glossary, Government of India, 1988 Edition. Thus to prove "association" it must be shown that the persons so joined have a common purpose and that there is a mental connection between their related ideas. In such view of the matter, if a person has joined a known criminal or criminals only in a single case, by that it cannot be inferred that this single act would bring that person in association with known criminal (s ). There can be an apprehension of his associating with known criminal (s) only when there is sufficient evidence to show that he has been joining them regularly so as to give an impression that he would continue to join them in future also. Thus, I am of the view that the single instance of a child delinquent joining the company of any person who is having one case against him would not be sufficient to satisfy the definition of the word "association" used in Section 12 of the Act. I, therefore, accord my agreement with the argument of Mr. Tripathi that the bail of the revisionist could not be rejected on the ground that his release would bring him in "association" with known criminals. The other two conditions that the release would expose the revisionist to moral, psychological and physical danger and that it would frustrate the ends of justice are also not available in the case as there was no material to prove these conditions. Thus, in my view, both the courts below were wrong in rejecting the application for bail moved by the revisionist and the orders are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, revision is allowed. Orders dated 1. 4. 08 and 30. 4. 08 are, hereby, quashed. It is, hereby, directed that the revisionist shall be released on bail in case crime no. 499/06, under Sections 302, 323, 504, IPC and in case crime no. 502/06, under Section 25/27, Arms Act, P. S. Kampil, District Farrukhabad on his executing two sureties each of Rs. 40,000/- filed by him to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Farrukhabad. One of such surety shall be the mother of the revisionist, if alive, and if not, his near relative. .