Allahabad High Court
Rehan @ Rihan Siddiqui vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 July, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1805 of 2021
Revisionist :- Rehan @ Rihan Siddiqui
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Prashant Kumar,S.M.Faraz I. Kazmi,Shashi Ranjan Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. 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 22.2.2021 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2021 (Rehan alias Rihan Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jalaun at Orai in Bail Application No. 24 of 2020 arising out of case crime No. 0851 of 2020, under Section 377 IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act, PS Kotwali, Orai, District Jalaun whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer of bail of accused-revisionist.
It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case both sides lodged FIRs against each other. From the side of the revisionist, father of the revisionist lodged FIR on 13.11.2020 regarding the incident which took place on 10.11.2020 under Sections 506 IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act against Sahil and Sunil Chauhan. It is next pointed out that in the said case Sahil (Minor) has been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.6.2021 in Criminal Revision No. 1114 of 2021.
It is also pointed out that so far as the instant case is concerned, it is submitted that impugned FIR dated 13.11.2020 at case crime No. 0851 of 2020 has been lodged on the basis of false and concocted facts under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act against the revisionist. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the victim as well as accused-revisionist both are minor.
Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 10.11.2020 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 04.12.2020 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 14 years 07 months and 09 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. It is also not disputed that the revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 13.11.2020.
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 vehemently opposed the present revision. It has thus been submitted, merely because the revisionist is a juvenile it would not entitle him to bail without going into the gravity of the offence, 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 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 13.11.2020.
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, which are as under:
(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 22.2.2021 and 22.12.2020 are hereby set aside.
Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed.
Let the revisionist Rehan alias Rihan Siddiqui, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his father namely Subhan Allah, 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 :- 13.7.2022
Ishrat
