Tilak Singh Chandel vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 10571 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 88
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2827 of 2021
 

 
Revisionist :- Tilak Singh Chandel
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Satish Chandra Dwivedi,Arun Kumar Pandey,Suman Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

Despite service of notice upon the informant/opposite party no.2, no one has put in appearance on his behalf.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the record of the case.

The present criminal revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.09.2021 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 25, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2021 (Tilak Singh Chandel Vs. State of U.P.), and against order dated 08.09.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Nagar in Case Crime No. 507 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, police station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer of bail of accused-revisionist.

As per the prosecution case in brief, informant, who is brother of the victim, lodged the first information report on 22.07.2021 with regard to an incident which took place on 20.07.2021 against Tilak Singh Chandel (present revisionist) and co-accused Ankit alleging inter alia that on 20.07.2021 at about 07:15 P.M., his sister aged about 17 years was enticed away by the revisionist - Tilak Singh Chandel, who is son of his brother-in-law.

It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the victim was major at the relevant date of incident but the informant has intentionally mentioned her age as 17 years. On 04.08.2021, the victim was recovered from Ram Gopal Chauraha, district Kanpur Nagar and thereafter, statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the victim was recorded in which she has stated that she was in touch with the revisionist for the last one year and she wants to marry him. On 20.07.2021, she herself has left her house and thereafter she had gone with the revisionist to Kanpur Central Railway Station and from there they had gone to Varanasi where they solemnized marriage and both have stayed there for a period of 10 days. During this period, they also made physical relations with each other. Lastly, she has stated that she wants to live with the revisionist. It is next submitted that when the custody of the victim was handed over to her parents, thereafter her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she has improved her statement by stating that the revisionist has forcibly made physical relation with her. The victim has refused for her internal and external medical examination. It is further submitted that the revisionist and the victim are relatives and it appears that the victim was the consenting party with him.

Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders also submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 20.07.2021 and was aged about 16 years, 02 months and 04 days. It is next submitted that aforesaid order declaring the revisionist as juvenile has attained finality because the same has not been challenged by opposite party No.2. It is also not disputed that the revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 08.08.2021.

As to the offence alleged, it is submitted that the revisionist has falsely been implicated in the case with ulterior motive. In this regard, it is further stated that proper investigation was not conducted by the police and thus the revisionist had wrongly been charged with the offence.

It has been submitted that the Social Investigation Report filed in this case also does not raise any specific or strong objection against the revisionist being released and only general and unfounded objections and observation have been made therein. It is further being emphasized that the revisionist does not have any criminal antecedent to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no material on record for believing that the release of revisionist is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, psychological danger, therefore, aforesaid impugned orders are not sustainable and liable to be set aside and revisionist is entitled to be released on bail in view of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015.

Learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the present revision. It has thus been submitted, merely because the revisionist is a juvenile, it would not entitle him to bail without going into the gravity of the offence, the nature of the crime. It is also contended that the bail sought for has been rightly refused in view of Section 12(1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015.

Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that while it is true that a juvenile offender is not entitled as of right to be enlarged on bail, irrespective of any other fact or circumstance, however, it also cannot be denied that in view of specific and special legislative intent and intervention, refusal of bail in the case of a juvenile may be made only for specific reasons and circumstance. Otherwise, a general legislative presumption does appear to exist under the scheme of the Act that the welfare of alleged juvenile offender would be better served without he being confined for long duration. Here, the revisionist has remained in juvenile home since 08.08.2021.

The Court has to see whether the opinion of the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and orders are in consonance with the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Section 12 of the aforesaid Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile. They are:-

(1) if 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.

Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail in Section 12 of the aforesaid Act. Though the prayer for bail of the revisionist has been opposed by learned counsel for opposite parties, but could not demonstrate from the record that there existed any of the grounds on which bail application of a juvenile could be rejected keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

Considering the above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are erroneous and cannot be sustained. The aforesaid impugned orders dated 23.09.2021 and 08.09.2021 are hereby set aside.

Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed.

Let the revisionist - Tilak Singh Chandel, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his father, namely, Balram Singh, who is his natural guardian with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;

(ii) The revisionist through guardian shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;

(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Order Date :- 18.8.2022

Shubham