Allahabad High Court
Minor Accused A Son Of B ... vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 20 May, 2022
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 642 of 2021
Revisionist :- Minor Accused A Son Of B Guardian/Father Thru. His Father
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Ors.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra,Vijay Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the opposite parties.
This Criminal Revision has been filed against the order dated 01.07.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.66 of 2021 arising out of Criminal Case No.71 of 2021, Case Crime No.142 of 2021, under Sections 376D/506 I.P.C., Police Station-Lalganj, District Pratapgarh and the judgment and order dated 14.09.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2021.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the revisionist is a juvenile. It is further submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board rejected his bail application in mechanical manner, merely on the basis of presumption, which is contrary to the D.P.O. report. Further reliance has been placed on the report of the D.P.O., in which it is observed that nothing is found regarding specific adverse against the revisionist. It is stated that no specific or strong objection has been made by the D.P.O. in his report and only general observations have been made. He further submitted that provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act were not considered by the Juvenile Justice Board while passing the impugned order dated 01.07.2021 and the appellate court has also wrongly dismissed the appeal filed against the said order. Further the conduct of the revisionist was not so bad and there is no evidence that, in case, he is released on bail, then he shall be associated with the criminals. In these circumstances, the revisionist is also entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A., while opposing the prayer, submits that Juvenile Justice Board has rightly rejected his bail application as in the D.P.O. report, it is observed that it is not proper for the society to release the revisionist on bail. However, learned A.G.A. 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.
I have considered the rival submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, which reveals that the above aspects of the matter except to grant of bail to the co accused have not been properly considered by the courts below.
The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that it is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. It has been submitted that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, prayer for bail of a juvenile can be rejected 'if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice'.
This Court has to see whether the opinion of the appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned 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 Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile, which are as follows:
(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?
Admittedly, gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail under Section 12 of the Act.
It has further been submitted that gravity of the offence could not be relevant for refusing grant of bail to the juvenile, as has been held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P., 2010 (68) ACC 616 and it has been a consistent view of various courts. It has also been submitted that there exists no material to justify rejection of bail on the grounds envisaged by Section 12 of the Act.
In view of the above, this revision is allowed and order dated 01.07.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.66 of 2021 arising out of Criminal Case No.71 of 2021, Case Crime No.142 of 2021, under Sections 376D/506 I.P.C., Police Station-Lalganj, District Pratapgarh and the judgment and order dated 14.09.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2021 are hereby set aside.
Let revisionist Sateek @ Kash, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing of a personal bond alongwith an undertaking on behalf of revisionist by his legal guardian/father to the effect that he will not permit the revisionist to come in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice and provide no occasion to the revisionist whereby his release on bail would defeat the ends of justice, by his legal guardian/father and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to following conditions :-
(1) Revisionist will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail.
(2) Revisionist will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court.
(3) Revisionist shall remain present, in person, before the Board on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case; (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Board that absence of the revisionist is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Board to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and Board will be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 20.5.2022
Amit/-
