Rahul Dubey vs State Of U.P. And Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 3820 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2053 of 2014
 
Revisionist :- Rahul Dubey
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Smt. Usha Srivastava,Vinod Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgement and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Farrukhabad dated 17.07.2014 and Juvenile Justice Board, Farrukhabad dated 04.04.2014, whereby the prayer for bail of the revisionist being a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has been refused in case crime no. 521 of 2013, under Section 376(d) I.P.C. and Section 3 Protection of Child from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, Police Station Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad.

Facts in brief giving rise to this revision are that the first information report was lodged at the concerned police station stating that daughter of the complainant Km. Preeti aged about 14 years stand in class 7th. She went out of her house on 2 O'clock in the after noon for tuition but she did not return till 05:00 P.M. Finally at about 06:30 P.M. she was found in a disgusting position near animal hospital, Police Line Road, Fatehgarh. On being asking, she reveal that while she was going for tuition, her friend Faizul daughter of Saleem took Preeti to her house at bhusamandi Police Station Kotwali, Fatehgarh. There she  made Preeti sit in the room in which Faizul's brother Amir and three unknown boys were present. Faizul close the room from outside, then Amir and other unknown boys committed rape on Preeti and later on left her in some vehicle near P.D. College, Fatehgarh. Since the girl was so afraid, she was not at once  in a position to brought to the police station.

Thus the revisionist was named in the FIR.

It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that the police arrested him on the basis of his confessional statement. This argument has no force because he was named in the FIR.

The revisionist claimed himself to be a juvenile under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, herein-after referred to as the Act. Perusal of the record shows that he was declared a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board on 12.03.2014. There was nothing on record to show that this order has not attained finality. The bail application of the revisionist Rahul Dubey was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board on 04.04.2014, against which appeal was filed before the Sessions Judge, which appears to have been transferred to the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, who confirmed the order of the Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board and affirmed the order dated 17.07.2014.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in the present case, the revisionist has been declared juvenile by the Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board and thus, he is entitled to bail under the provisions of section 12 of the Act, but the learned Juvenile Justice Board and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad have refused the bail without considering the provisions as laid down under section 12 of the Act. He has argued that no plausible and valid reasons have been given for refusing the bail of the revisionist. It has been contended that there is no material on record to show that if the revisionist is released on bail, 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.

The revision has been opposed by the learned AGA by submitting that the offence committed by the revisionist is of grave nature. If he is released on bail the revisionist would come in the association of the criminals, his parents are not educated and they will not be in a position to look after and guide the accused. In such circumstances, the revision is likely to be dismissed and the revisionist may not be released on bail.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA and from the perusal of the record, it is clear that the order of declaring the revisionist a juvenile has become final and for the purposes of bail, the provisions of section 12 (1) of the Act are as follows:

"(1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grunds 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. "

According to sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act, a juvenile shall be released on bail with or without surety notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, the first part of the provision appears to be mandatory in nature for releasing on bail but the second part is equally appears to be mandatory for refusing the bail as a juvenile shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that;

(1) the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal; or

(2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger; or

(3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

In the case of refusal of the bail, some reasonable grounds for believing the above mentioned exceptions must be brought on record by the prosecution but in the present case, there is nothing on the basis of which the court can come to such conclusion. The grounds mentioned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the Juvenile Justice Board are in case the juvenile is released on bail, he will come in the association of history sheeters and habitual offenders and there is every possibility is being involved in such offences. I do not think, this possibility could be the ground for refusing bail to the juvenile. Thus, only on the basis of presumption, the bail of the juvenile has been refused and thus, the order dated 04.04.2014 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and the order dated 17.07.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad cannot be sustained.

Keeping in view the welfare of the revisionist and other factors, I think, he is entitled for bail.

Let the revisionist Rahul Dubey involved in case crime no. 521 of 2013, under Section 376(d) I.P.C. and Section 3 Protection of Child from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, Police Station Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad be released on bail on his guardian's furnishing personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned and undertaking to the effect that he will not let the juvenile come in the association with any known criminal and will assure that he is not exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger.

Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

Order Date :- 31.7.2014

sailesh