Allahabad High Court
X- Minor vs State Of U.P. on 31 August, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1595 of 2022
Revisionist :- X- Minor
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Kamalendra Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yadvendra Singh
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P., Mr. Yadvendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no. 2 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 24.03.2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Etah in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2022 (Kunal @ Azad vs. State and another), and against order dated 23.02.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Etah in Bail Application No. 09 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 849 of 2021, under Sections 307, 323, 504, 120-B IPC, police station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah whereby the 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, brother of the injured has lodged an F.I.R. on 09.10.2021 with regard to an incident occurred on th same day against the revisionist and one unknown person by attributing the role of causing fire arm injury to the injured against the revisionist.
It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the prosecution version and the statement of the victim are contradictory. It is next submitted that so far as the injuries of injured is concerned, injured has received three injuries out of which injury nos. 1 and 2 were caused by hard and blunt object whereas injury no. 3 was caused by fire arm on his leg, which is non-vital part of the body and the same is also not dangerous to life.
Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 09.10.2021 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 02.02.2022 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 13 years 09 months and 08 days on the date of alleged incident. It is next submitted that aforesaid order declaring the revisionist as juvenile has attained finality because the same has not been challenged by the opposite party No.2. Revisionist has no criminal history to his credit and has remained confined in juvenile home since 26.10.2021 against the maximum sentence of three years.
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 as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently opposed the present revision by contending that specific role of causing fire arm injury has been assigned to the revisionist but they could not dispute that the revisionist has been declared juvenile treating his age as 13 years 9 months and 8 days on the relevant date of incident and the injuries are on non-vital part of the body and also not dangerous to his life.
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 26.10.2021.
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 24.03.2022 and 23.02.2022 are hereby set aside.
Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed.
Let the revisionist X- Minor involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his father namely Ajay Kumar Yadav, 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 :- 31.8.2022
Saurabh
