Allahabad High Court
Alim vs State Of U.P. Through Prin. Sec. ... on 22 November, 2022
Bench: Om Prakash Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 685 of 2022
Revisionist :- Alim
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Prin. Sec. Home Govt. Of U.P. And Anr
Counsel for Revisionist :- Raj Bahadur Verma,Abhishek Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J.
Supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the revisionist in Court today, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and also perused the record.
This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist to quash the judgment and order dated 17.01.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Kannauj in Juvenile Appeal No.01 of 2022, as well as order dated 21.12.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Kannauj in application of the revisionist for releasing him on bail in Case Crime No.411 of 2021, under Sections 376, 307, 324, 506 I.P.C. and Section 5h/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station and District Kannauj.
The main ground of the revision is that revisionist is minor, aged about 16 years and 2 months and age of the victim is 14-17 years. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that impugned orders passed by Juvenile Justice Board and Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO Act is illegal and passed without applying judicial mind. It is submitted that FIR has been lodged with the delay of one day without explanation. His family relations and conduct is very good. He has been detained in jail since 16.06.2021. Career of the revisionist would be affected by the detention. 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 objected the submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that revisionist has committed a very serious offence. It is the case of rape with minor girl aged about 14-17 years. From the perusal of injury report, it is apparent that hymen of victim torn fresh. There is sharp cut injury at the frontal scalp and cut mark on the wrist joint. It is also submitted that rest two accused have been exonerated and charge sheet has been filed against the revisionist. At the time of incident, age of the revisionist was 16 years 2 months. 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.
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.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, medical report of the prosecutrix and statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC of the victim, there appears no illegality, material irregularity or manifest error in the impugned orders. Findings recorded by the learned Court below can be sustained in the eye of law. This Court is of the view that interference is not required in the impugned orders and this revision lacks merit and is liable to be rejected. It is not proper by this Court to set aside the order dated 17.01.2022 and 21.12.2021 because his release would defeat the ends of justice. Causing rape and injury on the body of the victim shows the mental status of the revisionist. Trial is pending before the Juvenile Justice Board.
In view of the above, this criminal revision is accordingly dismissed.
The trial Court/JJ Board is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2440, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 22.11.2022
Priya
