Juvenile (X) vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 16644 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 91
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2750 of 2022
 

 
Revisionist :- Juvenile (X)
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Dinesh Kumar Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandrajeet,Om Prakash
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and Ms. Uma Barman holding brief of Sri Om Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

2. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 30.03.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut and further challenging the order dated 05.07.2021 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge FTC, (POCSO Act), Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 38/2021 affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board declining bail to the juvenile in criminal case arising out of Case Crime No. 882 of 2020 under Section 147, 323, 302 IPC, Police Station Kankar Khera, District-Meerut.

3. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the impugned orders have been passed ignoring the principles of law, as applicable in the matters relating to bail to the juvenile and further ignoring the mandate of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015; the courts below have passed the impugned orders in an arbitrary manner and have drawn conclusions without having sufficient material before them.

4. As per the prosecution case, the informant's mother (Munni Devi), the deceased went to the informant's in-law's house to meet informant's wife and others on 14.09.2020 at about 8:30 in morning. The informant's mother was beaten and put to fire by his wife (Pinki), mother-in-law (Geeta), brother-in-law (the juvenile), Bholu and Shiva. She sustained 65% of the burn injuries and later died.

5. Finding one of the accused as juvenile, the matter was brought before the Juvenile Justice Board where in an age determination inquiry, he was found aged 12 years 9 months on the date of the occurrence. The application moved on his behalf for release on bail was dismissed by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 30.03.2021. The appeal against the aforesaid order, Criminal Appeal No. 38/2021, was also dismissed vide order dated 05.07.2021. Now this revision has been filed on behalf of the juvenile through his guardian and real sister for taking custody of the child, who is in the observation home since 30.11.2020.

6. I went through the papers on record. Following facts are not disputed that a FIR was lodged against 5 persons including the present revisionist-juvenile. During investigation, dying declaration was recorded, in which, the deceased stated that it was Pinki (her daughter in law), who held her hands, it was Pinki's mother, who poured kerosene on her and it was the juvenile, who lighted match stick. Charge sheet was submitted against all the five named persons. This is also not disputed that the case against the juvenile proceeded before the Juvenile Justice Board, in which, statement of informant-Vinit Kumar, Amit Kumar s/o Rajveer Singh, Kuwarpal Singh and Jai Prakash was recorded, which did not support the prosecution case and declared as hostile. This is also not disputed that the adult accused persons namely Smt. Pinki @ Priya, Smt. Geeta, Ravi @ Bholu and Mohit @ Shiva have been granted bail by coordinate bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 25030 of 2022, 34010 of 2022, 10054 of 2021 and 50581 of 2021 vide order dated 21.07.2022, 08.09.2022, 28.06.2021 and 26.04.2022 respectively. In this way, all the remaining four persons, who were named and out o whom two were assigned a specific role of catching hold of the deceased and pouring kerosene on her, have been admitted to liberty of bail.

7. It is contended that the minor-the juvenile has been falsely implicated in the present case just because he belonged to the family of in-laws with whom the informant and his mother had very strained relations at that time. It is also contended that when all the adult accused persons have been granted bail, then there is no justification for keeping the minor, who is aged below 13 years in observation home just because he happens to be a juvenile.

8. I went through the social investigation report. There is nothing worthwhile to mention in the social investigation report, which could assist the court in forming an opinion for the purpose of declining bail to the juvenile; instead the DPO has suggested in the concluding para which is as below:-

"??????? ??? ?????? ?????- ????? ?? ??????? ? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ????

???????? ?? ????? ?? ?????- ??????????? ??? ???????? ???????? ? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???"

It is also mentioned that the juvenile has been a regular student. Obviously, his studies have been disrupted because of his detention in the protection home.

9. I went through the order of the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate Court. In my view, the principle of law, as applicable in matters of bail to the juvenile, have not been adhered in their proper perspective. Keeping all the facts and circumstances of the case, especially, the fact that the juvenile is found to be aged below 13 years, a very very immature age, a formative stage for a kid needing company of near and dears and when he has been away from her family for two long years and also in view of the fact that there has been no material to arrive at a conclusion that in case he is released, he shall be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger and that he shall come in association with any known criminal and that ends of justice shall stand defeated, I find it a fit case to release him in the custody of his guardian.

10. In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The judgment andorder dated 05.07.2021 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge FTC, (POCSO Act), Meerut andorder dated 30.03.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut, are hereby set aside.

11. Let the revisionist, minor "X' through his Guardian/real sister be released on bail inCase Crime No. 882 of 2020 under Section 147, 323, 302 IPC, Police Station Kankar Khera, District-Meerut upon his guardian furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of her relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut subject to the following conditions:

(i) that the guardian 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 guardian will ensure that the juvenile will not indulge in any criminal activity;

(ii) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;

(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall also 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.

(iv) The DPO shall keep an eye on his activities and in case any suspicious activity is noted, a report shall be placed before the Juvenile Justice Board/court concerned for obtaining proper order with an aim to achieve his own best interest.

12. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, unaffected by anything said in this order.

Order Date :- 11.11.2022

Vik/-