Allahabad High Court
Shani Paswan (Minor) vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 May, 2022
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2087 of 2021
Revisionist :- Shani Paswan (Minor)
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sher Bahadur Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Pal,Sharad Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard Mr. Sher Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and also perused the material available on record.
The present criminal revision has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 12.03.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act/ Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.25, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No.854 of 2020, under Sections 376, 120-B IPC at Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive. There is material contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. As per statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., no serious allegations have been levelled against the revisionist. He has further submitted that the revisionist was aged about 16 years 7 months and 22 days at the time of incident. As per medical report of the prosecutrix, there is no evidence of sexual assault. He has further submitted that co-accused Deepu Nishad has already been enlarged on bail by the court below. He has further submitted that the revisionist was declared as juvenile in conflict of law on 12.01.2021 but even that both the court below were failed to consider the special provision for bail to juvenile; only gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration for refusing grant of bail to juvenile as has been envisaged in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act and it has been consistent view of various courts; the Board or the lower appellate court has not given any reason or material on record which shows that release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral physical or psychological danger, that his release would defeat the ends of justice; there is no criminal history of the revisionist and there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial. The revisionist is in jail since 06.09.2020.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that bail application of the Juvenile has been rejected primarily taking into account the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed without there being any substance. He has further submitted that once a person has already been declared Juvenile, his bail cannot be rejected on account of gravity of offence committed, if there is no other reason as required for not granting bail. He has further submitted that there exists no ground as specified in Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act for rejection of bail application. The orders passed by the appellate court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board do not disclose any concrete reason for concluding that release of revisionist would bring him in association with bad elements of society and his release would expose him morally, physically and psychologically.
On the other hand, Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the bail. It is not a relevant factor while considering to grant bail to the juvenile. It has been so held by this Court in the cases of Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB); Abdullah @ Abdul Hassan Vs. State of U.P. and Others [2015 (90) ACC 204]; Maroof Vs. State of U.P. and Another [2015 (6) ADJ 203]; Criminal Revision No. 112 of 2015 (Suraj @ Ashok Sukla Thru. Father Mahendra Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 2010(71) ACC 209 decided on 02.07.2015.
It is evident that there is no satisfactory material on record to conclude that the release of juvenile would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that it would defeat the ends of justice or would bring him into association of known criminals. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that revisionist deserves to be released on bail to his parents or legal guardians in absence thereof.
Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed. The impugned judgments/orders passed by the courts below are hereby set aside.
Let revisionist-Shani Paswan (Minor) be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.854 of 2020, under Sections 376, 120-B IPC at Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar, on furnishing a personal bond by either of his parents and in absence by his legal guardians two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned and subject to following conditions:-
(i) That the natural guardian of the revisionist 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 natural guardian will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.
(ii) The revisionist and his natural guardian will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Wednesday of every calendar month commencing with the first Wednesday of December, 2020 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 concerned on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.
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 :- 5.5.2022
Ajeet
