Allahabad High Court
X (Minor) vs State Of U.P Through Secretary ... on 12 December, 2022
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 297 of 2022
Revisionist :- X (Minor)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Through Secretary Home And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Saksham Srivastava,Akhilesh Srivastava,Mayank Yadav,Vivek Kumar Singh
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 09.11.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh (State vs. Gopal Thakur) and further challenging the order dated 04.01.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Aligarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 2021 affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board declining bail to the juvenile in Misc. Case No. 84 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 182 of 2021, under Section 377, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Gandhi Park, District- Aligarh.
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, As per the prosecution version it has been alleged that his son who was watching television in from of his shop on 15.03.2021 at 10.00 p.m., was taken away by accused persons Bantu, one unknown person and the revisionist and committed unnatural activities with his son. The victim was medically examined; the statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim was recorded, in which he has stated that he is aged about 17 years. On 15.03.2021 when he saw T.V. the accused persons including the revisionist carrying him and committed unnatural sex with him. 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 17 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 status of the revisionist is normal and only the presumption that if the revisionist is released on bail he may again commit crime. No supplementary report has been prepared about the injury of the victim. The revisionist has no criminal history. It is not disputed that the juvenile is in observation home since 26.06.2021.
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 21.06.2021. 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 09.11.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh and further challenging the order dated 04.01.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Aligarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 2021, affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board declining bail to the juvenile in Misc. Case No. 84 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 182 of 2021, under Section 377, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Gandhi Park, District- Aligarh, are hereby set aside.
8. Let the revisionist, minor "X' through his guardian/mother be released on bail in Case Crime No. 182 of 2021, under Section 377, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Gandhi Park, District- Aligarh, 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.
