Raja (Minor) vs State Of U.P.
2017 Latest Caselaw 24 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Reserved
 
Court No. - 26
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1113 of 2017
 

 
Revisionist :- Raja (Minor)
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Dharm Vir Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

1. This Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the order dated 16.02.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Etah in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2017 [Raja (Minor) vs State of U.P.] and also the order dated 13.01.2017 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Etah in Bail Application No. 02 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 804 of 2016, under sections 376 IPC and 4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Jalesar, District Etah, whereby the bail application of the revisionist has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist has stated that while rejecting the bail application and criminal appeal of the revisionist, the learned courts below have failed to taken into account the provision of section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Yadav (Juvenile Delinquent) vs State of U.P decided on 27.11.2014 and the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ranjeet Yadav vs State of U.P. and another, reported in 2015 (7) ADJ 65 and stated that the gravity of the offence cannot be the basis for determining the grant or rejection of bail application by the learned courts below, in case of a juvenile found in conflict with the law.

4. The provision of bail for a juvenile is given under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which reads as under:

"12. Bail of juvenile.--(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 or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person but he shall not be so released if there appear 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.

(2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer in charge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board.

(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order."

5. This Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Yadav (supra) has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Jitendra Singh vs State of U.P., 2013 (11) SCC 193, wherein the Supreme Court with regard to bail to juvenile observed as under:

"39. The provision dealing with bail (Section 12 of the Act) places the burden for denying bail on the prosecution. Ordinarily, a juvenile in conflict with law shall be released on bail, but he may not be so released if there appear 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."

6. In accordance with section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the grounds which may be considered while declining the bail to a juvenile in conflict with law are as follows:

1. If there appears reasonable grounds for believing that release is likely to bring the juvenile in conflict with law into association with any known criminal, or

2. If there appears reasonable grounds for believing that release is likely to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or

3. If there appears reasonable grounds for believing that release of juvenile in conflict with law would defeat the ends of justice.

7. In the judgment rendered in the case of Sunil Kumar Yadav, this Court was considering the case of the revisionist, whose bail had been rejected on the ground that financial status of the revisionist was weak and in case he was released on bail, he will come in contact with known criminals, the co-accused Pappu alias Ram Kishore, whose bail has been granted by this Court, which will expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger. The juvenile in the said case was facing trial under sections 364, 302, 201 IPC and the case was based on circumstantial evidence and the revisionist was not named in the first information report. The Court took into account the fact that co-accused Pappu alias Ram Kishore, who was major, and was involved in the case had been granted bail on merit, it thus observed:

"at least a juvenile may also be entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the co-accused could not be termed as known criminal. Moreover there is nothing adverse against the revisionist in the report of Probation Officer".

This Court has thus granted bail to the revisionist Sunil Kumar Yadav in the above cited case.

8. In the other case cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist i.e. Ranjeet Yadav (supra) the allegations was that the revisionist, his driver and his father were all falsely implicated and it was alleged that the prosecutrix was an adult and according to her own statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., she had left home in the company of the revisionist on her own free will. The medical report and the statement of the prosecutrix did not support the prosecution story, as the radiological age of the girl had been found to be about 18 years. She had travelled to Varanasi and from Varanasi to Delhi and had lived at Delhi for about one month, but she had not tried to raise any alarm and from police report, which was filed along with revision, it was evident that seeing the police, the revisionist and the prosecutrix both had tried to run away.

9. The Court had relied upon the judgment in the case of Prakash vs State of Rajasthan, 2006 Cr LJ 1373, wherein the Court had observed thus:

""9. At the time of consideration of bail under Section 12 of the Act, the gravity or nature of offence has no relevancy. The language of Section 12 of the Act, using the word "shall" is mandatory in nature and providing non obstante clause by using the expression "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time-being in force be released on bail" shows the intention of the Legislature to grant bail to the delinquent juvenile offender by releasing him on bail who is arrested or produced before a Court; however, with exception to release him on bail if there are reasonable grounds for believing that his 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. It is for the prosecution to bring on record such material while opposing the bail and to make out any of the grounds provided in this Section which may persuade the Court not to release the juvenile on bail.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and having gone through the case law cited by him, I have perused the material placed on record by the revisionist to substantiate his case.

11. The report of the medical examination of the victim clearly shows that the revisionist had forced himself upon the victim, who was seven years old child and in the statements under sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., the child had clearly deposed about how she was taken away by the revisionist and later on caught on the spot by the public and he pretended to be taking a bath. In the orders impugned, there is specific mention about the fact that the revisionist was accused by name by the victim, who was studying in class II and the release on bail of the revisionist would defeat the ends of justice.

12. Having gone through the record of the case including statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. given by the victim and also the report of the medical examination of the victim, which shows penetration by force and resultant injury, I am of the opinion that there is no legal infirmity in the orders impugned as the release on bail of the revisionist would indeed defeat the ends of justice.

13. No doubt, the Juvenile Justice Act is a beneficial legislation intended for reform of the juvenile/child in conflict with the law, but the law also demands that justice should be done not only to the accused, but also to the accuser. In this case, the seven years old victim has been scarred for life.

14. For the reasons mentioned herein-above, the criminal revision is dismissed.

Order Date :- 04.05.2017

Sazia