Allahabad High Court
Km. Anjali (Minor) vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 November, 2022
Bench: Om Prakash Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 481 of 2022
Revisionist :- Km. Anjali (Minor)
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J.
The instant criminal revision under Section 102 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (herein-in-after referred to as 'Act') read with Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 12.01.2022 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (POCSO), Court No. 2, Aligarh in Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2021 (Km. Anjali Vs. State of U.P. and another) and judgment and order dated 09.12.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh in Misc. Case No. 344/2021, Case Crime No. 344 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C., P.S.- Akrabad, District- Aligarh by which prayer of release of revisionist was rejected.
Heard learned counsel for revisionist and learned A.G.A. for State.
Learned counsel for revisionist submitted that ten persons named in the F.I.R. and after investigation ten persons have been exonerated by Investigating Officer. Charge sheet has been filed against three persons namely Chandrakesh, Karru @ Vinit and Km. Anjali which are not named in F.I.R. It is also submitted that co-accused Chandrakesh and Karru @ Vinit have already enlarged on bail vide orders dated 26.05.2022 & 18.05.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 10287/2022 & 474/2022 respectively, copies of which have been annexed as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. It is further submitted that after 29 days from the date of incident, name of applicant/revisionist surfaced on the basis of mobile call which does not belong to applicant/revisionist. Applicant/revisionist is in Nari Niketan since 30.08.2021. At the time of incident applicant/revisionist was 15 years 2 months 21 days. She has no criminal history. Trial is not likely to be concluded shortly and that applicant/revisionist undertakes that she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.
After being declared juvenile, revisionist filed an application for bail through her father/guardian before Juvenile Justice Board which was rejected vide order dated 09.12.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh.
Against the order dated 09.12.2021 passed by The Juvenile Justice Board rejecting the application to release the revisionist on bail, appeal was filed which was rejected by order dated 12.01.2022 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (POCSO), Court No. 2, Aligarh.
Against the impugned order dated 09.12.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh and order dated 12.01.2022 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (POCSO), Court No. 2, Aligarh, this revision has been filed by the revisionist on the ground that revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Impugned orders are against law and not passed keeping in view the spirit of law that has been laid down with regard to juvenile in conflict with law. The reasoning of the impugned orders are superficial, not convincing and not supported by any evidence.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of release of the revisionist on bail and submitted that learned Juvenile Justice Board and learned appellate court has rightly rejected the prayer to release her on bail considering the facts and circumstances of the case and provision of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties along with entire matter available on record.
Bail of juvenile in conflict with law has to be considered on parameters in Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act. Section 12(1) and (2) of Juvenile Justice Act 2015 regarding bail of juvenile provides:-
"(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 sub-section (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."
Contention raised on behalf of revisionist has been confined to the extent that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The revisionist has already been declared juvenile by the court of Juvenile Justice Board. There is no evidence on record that may indicate that the release of revisionist is likely to bring her into association with any known criminal or expose her to moral, physical or psychological danger or that her release would defeat the ends of justice. There is no basis supported with evidence for reaching on such conclusion that in the event of her release on bail there is possibility of her going into company of known criminal or her release would defeat the end of justice.
Considering the rival submissions, fact of the case, legal position for release of juvenile on bail, this Court is of the view that board was not justified in rejecting the bail application and also appellate court did not consider the provision of Section 12 of the Act in right perspective, both the orders are not sustainable and liable to be set aside.
In the result, this criminal revision succeeds and the impugned orders dated 09.12.2021 & 12.01.2022 are hereby set aside and reversed. This criminal revision has force. Bail application of the revisionist stands allowed.
Let the revisionist- Km. Anjali (Minor) be released on bail in aforesaid case upon her guardian furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh subject to the following conditions:-
(1) The guardian/father will furnish an undertaking that on release of the revisionist on bail, the juvenile will not be permitted to go into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that her father/guardian will ensure that juvenile will not repeat the offence.
(2) The revisionist through guardian shall file an undertaking to the fact that she shall remain present before the trial court on each fixed date and cooperate in trial.
Order Date :- 2.11.2022
Sharad/-
