Sneha Kumari @ Gungun vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 214 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 93								A.F.R.
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 195 of 2022
 

 
Revisionist :- Sneha Kumari @ Gungun
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Prashant Rai
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Rai
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.11.2021 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2021 (Sneha Kumari @ Gungun versus State of U.P.), filed under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ''the Act') and affirming an order of Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad dated 12.01.2021 refusing bail plea to the revisionist in Case Crime No. 67 of 2020, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Link Road, District Ghaziabad.

Heard Shri Prashant Rai, the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Pradeep Kumar Rai, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no independent eye witness of the alleged incident. The name of the revisionist surfaced in the statement of eye witness, namely, Smt. Naina Devi, who also in her statement had stated that she is not assured but there is some relations between the revisionist and co-accused, Jitendra, and they must have killed the deceased, who is the mother of the revisionist. The informant is the father of the revisionist who was in the State of Bihar at the time of incident and on the basis of statement of witness, Naina Devi, the F.I.R. was lodged against the revisionist and the co-accused, Jitendra.

Leaned counsel for the revisionist further submits that according to the postmortem report of the deceased cause of death is due to compression of neck by ligature.

Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that no eye witness took the name of the revisionist that she was involved in the present crime. The alleged recovery of rope made by the police is not from the possession of the revisionist.

Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that it is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The revisionist has been roped in by the police on the basis of statements of Smt. Naina Devi, Satyanarain and Urmila Devi, who have also not seen the incident. The recovery memo is totally false. It is also argued that there is no incriminating evidence available on record about the revisionist's involvement in the commission of alleged offence.

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balakrishna Tukaram Angre Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No. 1704 of 2017. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence and the accused has been in custody for fifteen months.

Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the present case is a case of the circumstantial evidence. It is well settled law that where there is no direct evidence against the accused and the prosecution rests its case on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. In other words, there must be chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. All the links in the chain of circumstances must be complete and should be proved through cogent evidence. In the present case there is no continuing chain of evidence.

Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is juvenile and there is no apprehension of reasoned ground for believing that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring her in association with any known criminals or expose her to mental, physical or psychological danger or her release would defeat the ends of justice. He further submits that except this the revisionist has no previous criminal history. The maternal uncle (Mama) of the revisionist is giving his undertaking that after release of the revisionist on bail, he will keep her under his custody and look after her properly. Further, the revisionist undertakes that she will not tamper the evidence and she will always cooperate the trial proceedings. There was no report regarding any previous antecedents of family or background of the revisionist. There is no chance of revisionist's re-indulgence to bring her into association with known criminals.

Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that it is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile as she already been declared juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad vide order dated 05.11.2020. The revisionist was a juvenile aged 15 years, 11 months and 02 days on the date of occurrence. She was, thus, clearly below 16 years of age. She is in detention since 14.02.2020 in connection with the present crime and has completed a substantial period of sentence out of the maximum three years institutional incarceration permissible for a juvenile, under Section 18(1)(g) of the Act.

Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that thereafter the revisionist applied for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad, upon which a report from the District Probation Officer was called for. The bail application was rejected vide order dated 12.01.2021, being aggrieved, the revisionist preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the Act, which was also dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2021. Hence the present criminal revision has been filed before this Hon'ble Court mainly on the following amongst other grounds:

(i) That the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to rivalry/village partibandi.

(ii) That the revisionist is juvenile and there is no apprehension of reasoned ground for believing that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring him in association with any known criminals or expose him to mental, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.

(iii) That the revisionist has no criminal history except the present case.

(iv) That the law has been laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court that the seriousness of the offence is no ground to reject the bail of the juvenile and only three contingencies have been provided to be considered at the time of consideration of the bail application and those are if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

(v) That the father of the revisionist is giving his undertaking that after release of the revisionist on bail, he will keep him under his custody and look after him properly.

(vi) That the revisionist undertakes that he will not tamper the evidence and he will always cooperate the trial proceedings.

(vii) That both the courts below have committed gross illegality by rejecting the revisionist's bail prayer after declaring him juvenile.

(viii) That both the courts below have given wrong findings without any material available on record.

(ix) That there was no report regarding any previous criminal antecedents of the family or background of the revisionist.

(x) That there is no chance of revisionist's re-indulgence to bring him into association with known criminals.

(xi) That the impugned orders passed by the courts below are totally arbitrary, illegal and bad in law.

(xii) That the findings given by the courts below are based on conjectures and surmises.

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the revisionist have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the revisionist that she is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make herself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon her. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has pointed out that the revisionist has by now done a substantial period of institutional incarceration. The maximum period for which a juvenile can be incarcerated in whatever form of detention, is three years, going by the provisions of Section 18(1)(g) of the Act. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under :-

"2. This is a case in which the appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of the India Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that so far the appellant has undergone imprisonment for about 2 years and four months. The High Court declined to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal before it. We are of the view that the bail should have been granted by the High Court, especially having regard to the fact that the appellant has already served a substantial period of the sentence. In the circumstances, we direct that the bail be granted to the appellant on conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad."

Learned counsel for the revisionist has also placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10) SCC 463, and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under:-

"2. The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending. Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year. After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order. It is submitted that the appellants are already in jail for over 3 years and 3 months. There is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High Court. In the aforesaid circumstances the applicants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

Learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Pradeep Kumar Rai, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have opposed the revisionist's case with the submission that the release of the revisionist on bail would bring her into association of some known criminals, besides, exposing her to moral, physical and psychological danger. It is submitted that her release would defeat the ends of justice, considering that she is involved in a heinous offence.

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the impugned orders. The juvenile is clearly below 16 years of age and does not fall into that special category of a juvenile between the age of 16 and 18 years whose case may be viewed differently, in case, they are found to be of a mature mind and persons well understanding the consequences of their actions. The provisions relating to bail for a juvenile are carried in Section 12 of the Act, which reads as under:

"(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person:

Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.

(2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under subsection (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board.

(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order.

(4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail."

A perusal of the said provision show that bail for a juvenile, particularly, one who is under the age of 16 years, is a matter of course and it is only in the event that his/her case falls under one or the other disentitling categories mentioned in the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act that bail may be refused. The merits of the case against a juvenile acquire some relevance under the last clause of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 12 that speaks about the ends of justice being defeated. The other two disentitling categories are quite independent and have to be evaluated with reference to the circumstances of the juvenile. Those circumstances are to be gathered from the Social Investigation Report, the police report and in whatever other manner relevant facts enter the record.

What is of prime importance in this case is that the juvenile, who is a young girl, less than the age of 16 years, has no criminal history. There is nothing said against the juvenile, appearing from the Social Investigation Report that may show her to be a desperado or misfit in the society. The two courts below have held the juvenile disentitled to bail on account of her case falling under each of the three exceptions enumerated in the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 12, for which no reason has been indicated. That finding, in both the orders impugned, is based on an ipse dixit, in one case of the judge and in the other of the Board. Even if it be assumed that the offence was committed in the manner alleged, it would be rather strained logic to hold that release of the juvenile on bail would lead to the ends of justice being defeated.

This Court in the case of Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB) was pleased to observe that the gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration for refusing grant of bail to the juvenile.

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering that the prosecution has not produced any single witness against the revisionist who actually seen the incident, and the fact that the case rests on circumstantial evidence, and in view of the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 and the view taken by the Apex Court in the cases of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana (supra), Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) and Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. (supra)., this Court is of the view that the present criminal revision may be allowed and the revisionist may be released on bail.

In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and orders dated 12.01.2021 and 19.11.2021, are hereby set aside and reversed. The bail application of the revisionist stands allowed.

Let the revisionist, Sneha Kumari @ Gungun, through her natural guardian/ maternal uncle (Mama), Rajesh Kumar, be released on bail in Case Crime No. 67 of 2020, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Link Road, District Ghaziabad, upon her maternal uncle furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad subject to the following conditions:

(i) That the natural guardian/ maternal uncle (Mama), Rajesh Kumar 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 maternal uncle will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.

(ii) The revisionist and her maternal uncle (Mama), Rajesh Kumar will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Wednesday of every calendar month commencing with the first Wednesday of May, 2022 and if during any calendar month the first Wednesday falls on a holiday, then on the next following working day.

(iii) The District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the revisionist and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad, on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or the certified copy issued by the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(v) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

(vi) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the court below is directed to make every possible endeavour to conclude the trial of the aforesaid case within a period of four months from today without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

Order Date :- 23.3.2022

Mustaqeem.