Allahabad High Court
X (Juvenile) vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 October, 2022
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 91
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3121 of 2022
Revisionist :- X (Juvenile)
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Jitendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudhir Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. Heard SriJitendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Sudhir Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned AGA for the State of U.P.
2. This criminal revision has been filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 challenging the order dated 10.05.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Shahjahanpur and further challenging the order dated 02.07.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Court No. 8, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 45/2022 affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board declining bail to the juvenile in criminal case arising out of Case Crime No. 82 of 2022 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District-Shahjahanpur.
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 allegations in the FIR, initially registered under Section 363 IPC only, the victim aged about 16 years was enticed by some unknown persons on 21.01.2022. The juvenile has been named on the basis of suspicion. In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that she is a student of Class Xth and that she was acquainted with the juvenile-accused and that both of them wanted to marry each other. However, the families did not approve of this relationship, hence, on the date of the incident, she herself called the juvenile, who took her away from her house. She has also categorically stated in her statement that she went with the accused on her own free will and that both of them solemnized marriage in a temple and that they have been living as husband and wife since then. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has narrated exactly the same story, adding that she feared that her brother may catch them and she may be forced to marry some other person, not of her choice.
5. Finding the accused as juvenile, the matter was brought before the Juvenile Justice Board where in an age determination inquiry, he was found aged about 16 years and 5 months. Admittedly, no external or internal injuries were found on the person of the victim to show the use of force and she too was found aged about 16 years. The D.P.O. report does not mention any thing worth notice by the Court. Admittedly, the juvenile as well as the victim are almost of the same age group of 16 years, as per papers on record and that they were having a love relationship between them. The victim has clearly stated that she wanted to marry juvenile and she eloped with him on her own free will and desire as she feared that she may be forced to marry some other person by his family.
6. I perused the impugned orders. It appears that while passing the impugned orders, the settled principles of law, as applicable in the matters of bail to the juvenile and the mandate of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, have not been adhered to by the courts below and that the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as evident from the statement of the victim herself, have been altogether ignored. In my view, there has not been any real material before the Juvenile Justice Board or before the appellate Court in drawing a conclusion that the matter fell within the four corners of proviso to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act while declining bail to the juvenile. Hence, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
7. In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 02.07.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Court No. 8, Shahjahanpur and order dated 10.05.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Shahjahanpur, are hereby set aside.
8. Let the revisionist, minor "X' through his Guardian/Father R/o Mohalla Swaroop Nagar, Near Police Line, Sitapur, District Sitapur be released on bail in Case Crime No. 82 of 2022 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District-Shahjahanpur upon his guardian furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Shahjahanpur 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.
Order Date :- 21.10.2022
Vik/-
