Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra (Minor) vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 5 January, 2021
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4342 of 2019
Revisionist :- Dharmendra (Minor)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Syed Mohd Taqi Abdi,Mohit Behari Mathur,Syed Ahmed Faizan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
This revision has been preferred by the revisionist Dharmendra,(Minor) through his natural guardian/father Naresh against the judgment and order dated 15.10.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amroha in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2019 (C.N.R. No.- UPJB010042472019) in case crime no. 59 of 2019 under Sections 376, 504, 506, 323 I.P.C. Police Station- Adampur, District- Amroha.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the respondent and learned A.G.A for State of U.P.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is juvenile and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to enmity. He further submits that as per Juvenile Justice Board at the time of incident the age of the revisionist is 14 years and 6 months and therefore, the revisionist is juvenile. There is no mark of external injury on the body of the victim. There is also not any internal injury on the body of the victim and no spermatozoa was seen in the pathological report. He further submits that F.I.R. has been filed with 4 days' delay but there is no explanation of such delay. There is no evidence against him. He further submits that No specific role has been assigned against him. No incriminating fact has been mentioned in the report submitted by the District Probation Officer. If he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. The impugned orders are against the provision of law which are liable to be set aside.
Learned A.G.A has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that if the revisionist is released on bail, he will join in the company of habitual criminal,hence he is not entitled for bail.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (Act) has been enacted with object to reform and protect the future career of children below the age of 18 years. The main purpose of this Act is to keep the juvenile out of company and society of habitual criminals and to keep them in place of safety. The parameter and guidelines for assessment of plea of bail of a juvenile has been provided in Section 12 of the Act which is as under:-
"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 1[or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution of 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.
When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer incharge 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.
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."
Thus it is clear that the provision for release to a juvenile has overriding effect to any provision contained in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force. According to this provision, a duty has been cost to grant bail to a juvenile unless there is a reasonable ground for plea that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into association with any known criminal or exposed the said juvenile to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the end of justice.
Plea of bail raised by juvenile cannot be rejected in a mechanical manner. While considering the parameter provided in Section 12 of the Act, nature of offence, role played by the juvenile in committing the offence, his family background, his association with known or unknown criminals or bad elements of society, number of person named in the occurrence and future carrier of juvenile should also be taken into consideration by Juvenile Justice Board or court concerned in addition to the other factors.
In this case the revisionist was aged about 14 years at the time of occurrence. Admittedly the revisionist was juvenile at the time of occurrence. No material is available on record whereby it can be presumed that the revisionist was in association of any criminal or bad elements.
From perusal of impugned judgement and order passed by the appellate Court as well as passed by the Board, it transpires that both the Courts below have passed the impugned judgement and orders in cursory manner without placing due reliance on the report submitted by the District Probation Officer as well as facts and circumstances of this case. The impugned judgment and orders are liable to be set aside.
Consequently, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 15.10.2019 is hereby set aside.
Let the revisionist Dharmendra through his natural guardian/father Naresh be released on bail in the aforesaid criminal case and be given into custody of aforesaid natural guardian on furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of relatives of the aforesaid natural guardian each in like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board concerned on the following conditions.
(i)That, aforesaid guardian/ natural guardian of the revisionist will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail, the juvenile will not be permitted to go into contact or association with any known or unknown criminal or exposed to any moral or physical danger and will not indulge in any criminal activity and aforesaid natural guardian will make best effort for improvement of juvenile's carrier.
(ii)That the revisionist and his aforesaid natural guardian shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.
Order Date :- 5.1.2021
Anuj Singh
