Allahabad High Court
Xxx Juvenile vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 91
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 915 of 2022
Revisionist :- Xxx Juvenile
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ravindra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abida Syed,Ajay Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
01. Heard Sri Ravindra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Ms.Abida Syed,learned counsel for the High Court Legal Service Committee, High Court Allahabad and learned A.G.A. for the State.
02. This criminal revision has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 30.07.2021 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad and order dated 27.08.2021 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge,Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2021 affirming the order of J. J. Board declining bail to the juvenile in case crime no.593 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.s. Masuri, District Ghaziabad.
03. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the courts below have passed the impugned orders ignoring mandate of Section 12 of the J.J.Act, 2015 and ignoring settled principle of law as applicable in the matter of the juvenile. It is also contended that nature of the case is far different from which alleged by the prosecution and the court below ignored the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in declining bail.
04. In this case an F.I.R. was lodged by brother of the victim alleging that his sister had gone for purchasing some household goods at 12.00 in afternoon on 1.11.2020. However, she did not return. They searched for her and came to know that the juvenile has somehow enticed the victim and took her away towards Nahal Adda. Hence, suitable action may be taken. The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that she is aged 17 years and that she on her own free will accompanied the juvenile and went to a place in District Meerut and lived together. She also added that she wanted to marry the juvenile. However, in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she substantially changed her statement and stated that the juvenile, his brother and his mother forcibly carried her at the house of their relatives, threatened her. She was made to enter into physical relationship with the juvenile and his brother. After investigation no evidence was found against brother of the juvenile and his mother. However, the juvenile has been chargesheeted. The juvenile has been found aged 16 years, seven months on the date of occurrence while the victim, as per medical report, has been found aged 17 years. The juvenile is in detention since 12.11.2020 i.e. about two years have lapsed since his apprehension.
05. Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail. However, he did not dispute the factual aspects of this case as stated above.
06. I have perused the impugned orders. The juvenile justice board noticed certain facts as mentioned in the report of DPO that he has had no criminal history and that it was case of love affair between the victim and juvenile and several other facts. Thereafter, the J. J. Board directly came to conclusion that it shall not be appropriate to release him on bail as his release shall expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and that it may defeat ends of justice.
07. I also perused the impugned order passed by the appellate court. The appellate court mentioned the facts as observed in the DPO report. DPO report specifically states that the juvenile desired to continue his study. However, after referring to the D.P.O. report the appellate court has drawn same conclusion as drawn by J.J.Board. In my view, there has not been any sufficient material before the courts below to draw conclusion so as to bring the matter within the proviso to Section 12 of the J.J.Act for declining bail. Peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as revealed from the evidence collected during investigation including the statement of the victim give a different colour to this case. In my view, settled principles of law and mandate of Section 12 of the J.J.Act have not been adhered by the courts below. Hence orders are not sustainable.
08. In view of the above, especially, in view of the period of incarceration already undergone, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 30.07.2021 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad and order dated 27.08.2021 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge,Ghaziabad are hereby set aside.
09. Let the revisionist, minor "X' through his natural guardian/father Shahajad resident of House No.372, Mohalla Medhkan, police station Masuri Gram Nahal, District Ghaziabad, be released on bail in Case Crime No. 593 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.s. Masuri, District Ghaziabad upon his\father Shahajad furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of her relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad subject to the following conditions:
(i) that the natural guardian/ father Shahajad 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 father 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 District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the revisionist.
Order Date :- 20.10.2022
Asha
