HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1924 of 2022 Revisionist :- X (Minor) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Vivek Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
The present criminal revision has been filed against the Judgement and order dated 05.04.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO Act, POCSO-2, Court no. 15, Gautam Buddha Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2021 (Mohd. Anwar vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 14.02.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Gautam Buddha Nagar arising out of Case Crime No.838 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201, 404 IPC, Police Station Sector-20, District Gautam Buddha Nagar.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist was declared juvenile vide order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gautam Buddha Nagar; according to which, his age is mentioned around 17 years in social assessment report filed by District Probation Officer, in which, it is also stated that in the family of revisionist, one brother, two sisters, his mother, who is housewife and father, who is retail seller of slipper are there; he is studying and passed out of class 8th; revisionist is not named in the FIR; his name surfaced in the statement of Kamalu, who is named in the FIR alongwith co-accused Mobin; even in the statement of co-accused, role assigned to revisionist is of catching hold of the deceased at the time of incident; co-accused Mobin, who is named in the FIR, is already released on bail vide order dated 29.9.2022 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no. 24490 of 2022; FIR in the present case was lodged after recovery of dead body of the deceased, who got missing since 5.7.2021; applicant has been falsely implicated in this case; he has not been assigned any criminal history; case is based on circumstantial evidence and mainly on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused before the police he has been implicated in this case; he has not committed any offence.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that both the court below were failed to consider the special provision for bail to juvenile; only gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration for refusing or grant of bail to juvenile as has been envisaged in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act and it has been consistent view of various courts; the Board or the lower appellate court has not given any reason or material on record which shows that release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral physical or psychological danger, that his release would defeat the ends of justice and there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial. The revisionist is in jail since 10.07.2021.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that bail application of the Juvenile has been rejected primarily taking into account the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed without there being any substance. He has further submitted that once a person has already been declared Juvenile, his bail cannot be rejected on account of gravity of offence committed, if there is no other reason as required for not granting bail. He has further submitted that there exists no ground as specified in Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act for rejection of bail application. The orders passed by the appellate court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board do not disclose any concrete reason for concluding that release of revisionist would bring him in association with bad elements of society and his release would expose him morally, physically and psychologically.
On the other hand, Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that revisionist has now attained the age of 18 years and is liable to be tried as an adult; he has got sufficient degree of maturity and understanding of his criminal acts at the time of incident and in case he is released on bail there is every possibility for being involved in some criminal activities.
Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the bail. It is not a relevant factor while considering to grant bail to the juvenile. It has been so held by this Court in the cases of Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB); Abdullah @ Abdul Hassan Vs. State of U.P. and Others [2015 (90) ACC 204]; Maroof Vs. State of U.P. and Another [2015 (6) ADJ 203]; Criminal Revision No. 112 of 2015 (Suraj @ Ashok Sukla Thru. Father Mahendra Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 2010(71) ACC 209 decided on 02.07.2015.
The provisions of bail to a juvenile is given in Section 12 of the said Act.
The said provision provides that a juvenile accused has to be released on bail unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the 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. There is no any basis or material which may bring the case of the revisionist within the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act.
It is evident that there is no satisfactory material on record to conclude that the release of juvenile would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that it would defeat the ends of justice or would bring him into association of known criminals. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that revisionist deserves to be released on bail to his parents or legal guardians in absence thereof.
Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed. The impugned judgments/orders passed by the courts below are hereby set aside.
Let revisionist X (Juvenile) son of Sri Shaukat Ali, R/o House No. 1081 Nai Jama Masjid, Sector-08, Noida, P.S. Sector-20 Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar through natural guardian his father Sri Shaukat Ali, be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.838 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201, 404 IPC at Police Station Sector-20, District Gautam Budhda Nagar, on furnishing a personal bond by either of his parents and in absence by his legal guardians two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
Order Date :- 4.1.2023 Dhirendra/