Allahabad High Court
Satish Kacher vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 November, 2022
Bench: Om Prakash Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1988 of 2021
Revisionist :- Satish Kacher
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shyam Sunder Mishra,Arvind Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri Shyam Sunder Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and also perused the record.
This revision has been preferred by the revisionist to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 27.07.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Rape Case and POCSO Act), Chitrakoot in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2021 (Satish Kacher (minor) vs. State of UP) as well as order dated 25.03.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Chitrakoot in application of the revisionist for releasing him on bail in Case Crime No.531 of 2020, under Sections 305, 341, 376D I.P.C., Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Karwi, District Chitrakoot.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist was not named in the FIR. Co-accused Kisan is named in the FIR. After the alleged incident, victim has committed suicide. There is no statement of the victim. As per post mortem report, cause of death is hanging. The main ground of the revision is that revisionist is minor, aged about 15 years 3 months and 5 days at the time of incident and he has been declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, Chitrakoot on 09.02.2021. Career of the revisionist would be affected by the detention. He is in detained in jail since 14.10.2020. 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 is further being emphasized that the revisionist does not have any criminal history. 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 prayer for bail. It has been submitted, merely because the revisionist is a juvenile at the time of incident, it would not entitle him to bail without going into the gravity of the offence, the nature of the crime. Criminal Appeal has been decided on the basis of evidence on record. Revisionist has committed a very serious offence. Victim was minor at the time of the incident. He submits, 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 confined for more than two years. If the revisionist would be finally held guilty, the maximum punishment to be awarded would not exceed three years.
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. They are:-
(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 opposite party, but he 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. As per post mortem report, cause of death is hanging. No criminal history of the revisionist. Trial will consume much time before Juvenile Justice Board/Special Judge and revisionist is detained since 14.10.2020.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, detention of revisionist and post mortem report of the victim, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are erroneous and cannot be sustained. This Court is of the view that interference is required in the impugned order as it relates to the liberty of the revisionist, who was minor and this revision has force and is liable to be allowed. Hence, the impugned orders dated 27.07.2021 and 25.03.2021 are hereby set aside.
Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed.
Let the revisionist Satish Kacher involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- by the father (guardian) of the revisionist with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned during trial 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 :- 4.11.2022
Priya
