Full Judgment
2. Challenge to the aforesaid order of Juvenile Justice Board dated 4.11.2008 met with negative fate in Criminal Appeal No.262 of 2008 as Additional Sessions Judge, court no.6, Bareilly, also dismissed the appeal.
3. Facts as are culled out from various annexures filed along with the affidavit appended in support of this revision indicate that on 7.10.2007, deceased Farooq, aged about 18 years, had an altercation with the revisionist in the morning. Both the persons, at that time, had flexed their muscles with each. On the same day at 2:10 p.m., when the deceased was coming out from the Mosque after offering Namaj, Ali Ahmed father instigated the revisionist to do away with deceased, on which Mohd. Navi stabbed the deceased with knife who after sustaining grievous injuries, fell down on the ground and was rushed to the District Hospital but there he lost his battle for life and expired.
4. This incident was witnessed by the deceased father Navi Jaan, Sanoor, Hamid Khan and many other people. Murder was reported to the Police Station Cantt, Bareilly same day at 2:35 p.m. where Crime No.1312 of 2007 under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered.
5. Autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was performed on 7.8.2007 at 10:30 a.m. and autopsy report indicated penetrating wounds 4 cm x 1 cm on the left side umblicus, cause of death being shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries.
6. Revisionist Mohd. Navi claimed juvenility. That question was decided affirmatively by Juvenile Justice Board vide its order dated 4.11.2008, and it found the revisionist to be seventeen and half years of age hence he was declared a juvenile.
7. Subsequently revisionist moved an application for bail before Juvenile Justice Board but Juvenile Justice Board, rejected his bail prayer vide impugned order dated 4.11.2008 and opined that father is also an accused in an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and if revisionist is released on bail, he will come into contact with his father and consequently there are chances of deterioration of his mental, psychological and physical faculties.
8. Aggrieved by rejection of bail by Juvenile Justice Board, revisionist preferred Appeal No.262 of 2008 under Section 52 of the Act which was heard and rejected by Additional Sessions Judge, court no.6, Bareilly, vide impugned order dated 22.1.2009 as Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly also concurred with the opinion of Juvenile Justice Board. Hence the present revision under Section 53 of the Act.
9. I have heard Dr. Arun Srivastava learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Sangam Lal Keshwarni learned A.G.A. in opposition.
10. Facts as are mentioned above, unerringly indicates that in a day light incident, in a dare devil manner because of some altercation in the morning, at the instigation of his father, revisionist had stabbed the deceased, who was just of his age being 18 years, to death. Lower appellate court concluded that carrying of a knife by the revisionist at the time of the incident shows his criminal proclivity. He acted with due criminal intent by stabbing the deceased so fiercely that he lost his life soon after the incident.
11. Both the courts below further opined that it was father who had instigated the deceased to commit murder. Father has been released on bail, therefore, if the revisionist is released on bail, then his contact with father cannot be ruled out who also had criminal intent. Having such an opinion, both the courts below rejected the prayer for bail of the juvenile revisionist.
12. Learned counsel for the revisionists contends that since father has been released on bail, revisionist should also be released on bail as whatever he did, was at the instigation of his father. It was further submitted that gravity of the offence is not a criteria to deny bail to a juvenile revisionist.
13. Additional contention is that mother of the revisionist applied for bail, therefore, it should not have been denied.
14. Learned A.G.A. refuted the arguments by submitting that the revisionist is seventeen and half years of age on the verge of being declared to be major and was conscious of the activity done by him. It was further submitted that if the revisionist is released on bail, under the influence of his father, he may indulge into further crime. To mend and improve his psychology and to curb further deterioration of his mental, social and psychological faculties, it is necessary to detain him under juvenile home. Learned A.G.A., therefore opposed the bail by pointing out the facts of the case.
15. I have considered the arguments by both the sides. For consideration bail of juvenile, Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, is the relevant provision. Perusal of the said section, indicates that in all circumstances, Act does not ordains that a juvenile must be released on bail. The aforesaid section provides ".... "but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice."
16. The above referred legislative intent has to be kept into consideration while considering bail prayer of a juvenile. In the present case, on a petty dispute, father instigated his son to murder the deceased, a youth of 18 years of age when he was coming out of a Mosque after offering Namaj. This6 occurred after many hours of previous altercation. Ostensibly, there was no immediate cause for the revisionist to carry the murder weapon with him in day time and to stab the deceased at the bacons call. The act of the revisionist indicates his criminal intent and psychology. If the revisionist would have been released on bail, naturally he would have association of his father who had also criminal proclivity and does not care about welfare of his child. Mother of the revisionist who wants his release, has not shown any reason which can even remotely indicate that she can take care of the revisionist in his moral, physical and psychological developments.
17. In such a view, this Court is also of the opinion that the revisionist does not deserve bail and both the courts committed no error in law in rejecting the prayer for bail.
18. Instant revision being meritless, is hereby dismissed.