Allahabad High Court
X Juvenile (Minor) vs State Of U.P. And 3 Other on 11 August, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3555 of 2021
Revisionist :- X Juvenile (Minor)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Other
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shiv Shankar Kaithal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Dwivedi
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and Shri Rajesh Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 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 26.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (POCS) Act) Court No. 15, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2021 (Abhishek Vs. State of U.P.), and against order dated 02.9.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat in Case Crime No. 124 of 2021, under Section 377 IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act, police station Shivli, district Kanpur Dehat 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, the informant lodged FIR on 25.3.2021 regarding the incident which took place on 24.3.2021 under Section 377 IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act against the appellant.
The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that during trial informant and victim have been examined as PWs 1 and 2, but they have not supported the prosecution case and, therefore, they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. The said statements have been brought on record by filing a supplementary affidavit dated 19.6.2022 and, therefore, there is bleak chance of conviction of the appellant.
Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 24.3.2021 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 10.8.2021 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 14 years 02 months and 24 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 as stated by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2.
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 for the release of the revisionist and only general and unfounded objections and observations have been made therein. It has further been 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 of 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 that merely because the revisionist is a juvenile it would not entitle him to bail without considering the gravity of the offence and 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 as of right, a juvenile offender is not entitled 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 his being confined for long duration. Here, the revisionist has remained in juvenile home since 25.3.2021.
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 are hereby set aside.
Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed.
Let the revisionist "X" Juvenile (Minor) involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his father namely Sri Ram Sajivan, 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 extend threat to the witnesses;
(ii) The revisionist through his 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 :- 11.8.2022
Ishrat
