Allahabad High Court
Juvenile -X vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 December, 2022
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 91
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3614 of 2022
Revisionist :- Juvenile -X
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. Heard SriArvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State of U.P.
2. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 01.07.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur and further challenging the order dated 06.08.2021 passed by the Session Judge, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 69/2021 affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board declining bail to the juvenile in criminal case arising out of Case Crime No. 30 of 2020 under Sections 302, 315, 201, 506, 120B IPC, Police Station Peepiganj, District-Gorakhpur.
3. As per prosecution case, dead body of newly born girl of about 7 days was found by chowkidaar of village-Harpur; none claimed the dead body, therefore, information was given to the concerned police station; postmortem was conducted and it was found that the infant died of ante-mortem injury on her head; the matter was investigated and the involvement of Lilawati, Vibhashm Singh and this juvenile was found. It was disclosed that this juvenile aged about 15 to 16 years used to work as a domestic helper in the house of Vibhashm Singh; taking advantage of her weak socio-economic condition, she was defiled by him and as a result, she became pregnant and gave birth to an illicit child. It came into investigation that to keep away from prying eyes of the society, she killed the child and dumped the dead body near a pond with the assistance of her mother; after completing the necessary formalities of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against Lilawati, Vibhashm Singh and this juvenile under Sections 302, 315, 201, 506, 120B IPC.
4. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the impugned orders have been passed ignoring the principles of law, as applicable in the matters relating to bail to the juvenile and further ignoring the mandate of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015; the courts below have passed the impugned orders in an arbitrary manner and have drawn conclusions without having sufficient material before them. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the incident, though not admitted on behalf of the revisionist, occurred due to immense pressure, which was obviously there on the juvenile for doing away a girl child born out of an illicit relation which can be categorized as rape for the reason that she was the victim of circumstances owing to her weak socio-economic condition. There is no criminal history and no criminal tendencies as revealed from the social investigation report. It is said that no criminality can be attached to the juvenile as she herself is the victim of the circumstances as per the prosecution story itself. Admittedly, the co-accused namely, Vibhashm Singh and Lilawati have been granted bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 49464 of 2020 and 34813 of 2020 by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.08.2022 and 04.11.2020 respectively.
5. I went through the impugned orders. In my view, there has not been any real and substantive material before the Juvenile Justice Board or the appellate Court for bringing in the inferences as have been drawn by both the courts below for declining bail to her and applying the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. These facts are not disputed that the juvenile was merely about 15 years 10 months at the time of occurrence and that she is in observation home since 23.02.2020 i.e., more than 2 years 9 months now. I do not find any good ground to concur with the observations of the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate Court that in case she is released, she may come in contact with any criminal or may be exposed to any physical, moral or psychological danger and that her release shall defeat the ends of justice. Therefore, the orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
6. In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 06.08.2021 passed by the Session Judge, Gorakhpur and order dated 01.07.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur, are hereby set aside.
7. Let the revisionist, minor "X' through her guardian/father be released on bail in Case Crime No. 30 of 2020 under Sections 302, 315, 201, 506, 120B IPC, Police Station Peepiganj, District-Gorakhpur upon her guardian furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur subject to the following conditions:-
(i) that the guardian will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the guardian will ensure that the juvenile will not indulge in any criminal activity;
(ii) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall also 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.
8. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, uninfluenced by any finding or observation whatsoever in this order.
Order Date :- 6.12.2022
Vik/-
