Deepak Teli (Minor) Thru.Father ... vs State Of U.P. & Anr.
2021 Latest Caselaw 10895 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 28
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1571 of 2019
 

 
Revisionist :- Deepak Teli (Minor) Thru.Father Indresh Kumar @ Indresh Teli
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- D.P. Dutt Tiwari,Ajai Pratap Singh Chauhan,Anil Kumar Singh,Farooq Ayoob
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

Heard Shri Farooq Ayoob, learned counsel for revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. None is present for the opposite party no.2, however, as per report of the office dated 17.12.2019, she has been sufficiently served.

The instant revision has been filed on behalf of the juvenile by his father with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 02.11.2019 passed by the Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2019 (Deepak Teli v. State of U.P.) and order dated 05.10.2019 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Barabanki relating to Case Crime No.142 of 2019, under Sections 376 A, 376 B I.P.C., Sections 5m/6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act and 3(2)5 of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Baddupur, District Barabanki, whereby the prayer of bail of the revisionist has been rejected by both the courts below.

Learned counsel for revisionist submits that the revisionist has been declared juvenile of the age of 14 years, 3 months and 30 days on the date of occurrence vide order dated 23.09.2019 by the Juvenile Justice Board, Barabanki and no appeal against this order, in the knowledge of the revisionist, has been preferred anywhere and the order whereby the revisionist has been declared juvenile, has become final and juvenile is entitled to the beneficial provision of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

It is further submitted that the juvenile has not committed any offence and he has been made an accused only on the basis of local political enmity and the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. could not be believed in the background of the fact that the medical evidence is not supporting her statements. While referring to the injury report of the prosecutrix, it is evident that the hymen had been found intact and no injury of any kind has been noticed on the person of the prosecutrix and therefore, the only evidence, which is available on record against the revisionist, is the statement of the informant and the prosecutrix and the veracity of the same is to be tested during the course of trial.

It is also submitted that the revisionist is in child welfare home in this case since 06.08.2019 and he is not having any criminal antecedent and the District Probation Officer in its report has found the behaviour of the juvenile as normal and there was nothing in this report, which may be construed as a ground to reject the prayer of bail of the revisionist and therefore both the courts below have committed illegality in rejecting the prayer of bail of the revisionist on the ground that the request of bail of the juvenile could only be declined only on the grounds mentioned in the proviso appended with Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submits that the juvenile has committed heinous offence and there is every possibility if facility of bail is granted to him, he may join the company of some bad persons and his release would otherwise may cause failure of justice and will also defeat the ends of justice and having regard to the material/evidence available against the juvenile, he is not entitled to be released on bail and no illegality has been committed by both the courts below.

Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the age of the juvenile, on the date of alleged incident, is 14 years, 3 months and 30 days while the victim is aged about 10 years. The medical report available on record would suggest that the prosecutrix has been medically examined on 06.08.2019 (next day of the alleged incident), however, no injury of any kind has been found on the person of the prosecutrix and her hymen is also found 'present'. Though the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that the revisionist had committed rape with her against her wishes, but having regard to the fact that no injury has been found on the person of the prosecutrix, the illegal act of the juvenile could not be termed as which, if the juvenile is released on bail, would defeat the ends of justice. Having regard to the age of the juvenile as well as of the prosectrix the alleged crime appears to be an act of a person of juvenile mind and thus the revisionist appears to be entitled to be beneficial object of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 provides that the juvenile shall be released on bail with or without surety subject to the condition that his release is not likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would otherwise defeat the ends of justice. The report of the District Probation Officer available on record has only reiterated the version of the F.I.R. and the material, which has been collected by him and has been made the part of his report including the statement of the villagers would reveal that behaviour of the juvenile is cordial towards his companions, having friends of his age group and also he was assisting his family in agricultural works, thus there is nothing in the report of the District Probation Officer, which may reflect that the release of the juvenile on bail would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would otherwise defeat the ends of justice. Thus, there was no material available before the Juvenile Justice Board or the appellate court from which it may be inferred that the release of the revisionist on bail may attract any condition mentioned in the proviso appended with Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and it appears that both the courts below have been guided by the alleged seriousness of the crime without appreciating the fact that the heinousness or gravity of the offence is not to be seen while considering the plea of bail of the juvenile.

Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons mentioned hereinbefore, it is evident that both the courts below have committed serious illegality in denying the prayer of bail to the juvenile-revisionist. Thus, for the reasons mentioned herein above, I find force in the revision and the same is allowed. The judgment and order dated 02.11.2019 passed by the Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2019 (Deepak Teli v. State of U.P.) and order dated 05.10.2019 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Barabanki relating to Case Crime No.142 of 2019, under Sections 376 A, 376 B I.P.C., 5m/6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act and 3(2)5 of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Baddupur, District Barabanki, whereby the bail applications of juvenile Deepak Teli was rejected, are set aside.

Let Juvenile Deepak Teli, be enlarged on bail, in the above mentioned case on executing a personal bond by his father- Indresh Kumar @ Indresh Teli with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court/Board concerned and on submission of undertaking on affidavit by his father that he will take due care of the juvenile, will not allow him to indulge in any unlawful or criminal activity or join the company of unlawful elements, will keep him under strict control, shall not attempt or tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses; shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence, shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel failing which the facility of bail granted to Juvenile may be cancelled.

The juvenile after his release on bail shall appear before the District Probation Officer, Barabanki once in a month for one year from today along with his guardian.

Order Date :- 26.8.2021

Anupam S/-