Allahabad High Court
X Juvenile vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 December, 2022
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2278 of 2021
Revisionist :- X Juvenile
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rakesh Kumar Shukla,Ashwini Kumar Ojha,Devi Prasad Tripathi,Jitendra Kumar Ravat,Manish Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
1. Heard 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 09.07.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jhansi (State vs. Dhruv Kumar) and further challenging the order dated 09.08.2021 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jhansi in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2021 affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board declining bail to the juvenile in criminal case arising out of Case Crime No. 114 of 2021, under Section 363, 366, 376 (3) IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali, District- Jhansi.
3. 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.
4. As per prosecution case, The FIR was lodged by the informant against unknown persons by the informant alleging therein that his daughter was missing on 19.03.2021, who is aged about 15 years and during investigation, the investigating officer has recorded the statement of the informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which he has not disclosed the name of culprit. During course of investigation, the name of the revisionist has come into light and on 24.03.2021 the investigating officer has recovered the victim along with the revisionist from the bus stand. Thereafter, the I.O. has recorded the statement of victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she has mentioned that the revisionist has committed rape with her. The victim was medically examined; the statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim as well as some of the witnesses were recorded, in which she has stated that the revisionist has pressurized to meet him through the mobile phone and also mentioned that the revisionist has forcible carried her Orai and has committed rape with her. Finding the accused a minor, the matter was brought before the Juvenile Justice Board where the age determination inquiry took place and the accused was found aged below 18 years on the date of the occurrence. The guardian of the juvenile moved a bail application before the Juvenile Justice Board, which was dismissed. The appeal filed against the aforesaid order was also dismissed. Now, the juvenile through his guardian/father is before this Court under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
5. As per the report of District Probation Officer the revisionist is strong into his education and the offence which alleged to be committed by the revisionist is due to no knowledge regarding to the law and after enquiry from the neighbors of the revisionist no any wrong fact has come against the revisionist. It is not disputed that the juvenile is in observation home since 24.03.2021.
6. I went through the impugned orders. In a very brief order, the Juvenile Justice Board without analysis of any material before it gave an opinion that the juvenile did not deserve to be released on bail. The appellate Court took into consideration the nature of allegations as well as the suggestions and observations of the DPO for declining bail to the juvenile. In my view, there has not been any real material before the court concerned for drawing inference that if released, the juvenile may come in association with any criminal or that he may get exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger and that his release may defeat the ends of justice. There was absolutely no discussion on the three exceptions applicable where the bail to the juvenile can be declined. Moreover, these facts cannot simply skipped over that from the evidence collected the involvement of the accused in the crime is not free from doubt and that no external or internal injury or any sign of use of force was found. He is in observation home since 24.03.2021. It may also be noted that even if the juvenile stands convicted, the maximum period of detention he can be awarded is 3 years and he has already been in detention for 2/3 rd period of the maximum period.
7. In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 09.07.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jhansi (State vs. Dhruv Kumar) and further challenging the order dated 09.08.2021 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jhansi in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2021 affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board declining bail to the juvenile in criminal case arising out of Case Crime No. 114 of 2021, under Section 363, 366, 376 (3) IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali, District- Jhansi, are hereby set aside.
8. Let the revisionist, minor "X' through his guardian/father be released on bail in Case Crime No. 114 of 2021 under Sections 363, 366, 376 (3) IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali, District- Jhansi, upon his 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, Jhansi, 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.
9. 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 :- 12.12.2022
v.k.updh.
