Allahabad High Court
Juvenile (X) vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 3 August, 2023
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:155429
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4545 of 2022
Revisionist :- Juvenile (X)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Kumar Amit,Aaftab Ahmad Rain,Jai Singh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinod Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist through his natural guardian with a prayer to allow this revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 17.09.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2022 as well as order dated 18.04.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh. Further prayed to release the revisionist on bail in Case Crime No. 57 of 2022 under Section 376AB, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., 5(m)/6 POCSO Act 2012 and 3(2)(V) SC/ST 1989 (Amendment 2015), Police Station Atarullia, District Azamgarh.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the delinquent was aged about 16 years at the time of alleged incident in which rape is said to have been committed with the victim who was aged about 12 years by the revisionist and other co-accused person though during investigation the name of other co-accused person was exonerated on account of his presence being found on some other place. It is further submitted that the statement of the victim was recorded before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she did not identify the culprits but admitted the fact of rape with her by the accused person only. In this way, the identification of the revisionist could not be got established, therefore, he cannot be said to have committed rape with the victim. There is no any forensic report to establish the complicity of the revisionist. The statement of Priyanshu (a child) who was accompanying the victim has also not disclosed the name of the present revisionist. It is further submitted that there is nothing adverse against the interest of the delinquent in the report submitted by D.P.O.
It is further submitted that the provisions as contained u/s 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act had not been considered by the Juvenile Justice Board even the report submitted by Probation Officer was also not considered. The appellate court has also not considered all these facts but rejected the appeal without applying its judicial mind and considering the law as contained u/s 12 of the aforesaid Act. He is in Child Care Home since 08.02.2022 i.e. about one and a half years and his psychology is being affected adversely, therefore, requested to set aside orders passed by the J.J. Board as well as appellate court and allow the criminal revision.
Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. In this regard, the orders passed by the learned J.J. Board as well as learned appellate court cannot be said to be unlawful, therefore, he cannot be said to be entitled for bail and revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A. for the State, the time delinquent remained in Child Care Home, perusal of record, the provisions as contained u/s 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, the report submitted by the Probation Officer, it appears that Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court had not considered the relevant provisions and the material on record in well manner but passed the orders without applying their judicial mind. In this way, there appears ground in this revision and the orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court are liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the orders passed by Juvenile Justice Board dated 18.04.2022 and the appellate court dated 17.09.2022 are, hereby, set aside and present criminal revision is hereby, allowed.
It is directed that delinquent/applicant be released on bail on executing person bond by the revisionist ( natural guardian of the delinquent) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board concerned on following conditions :-
(i) The revisionist/ natural guardian will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the revisionist will not be permitted to go into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical, or psychological danger and further that the natural guardian will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.
(ii) The revisionist/ natural guardian will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juvenile will pursue his study at the appropriate level which he would be encouraged to do besides other constructive activities and not be allowed to waste his time in unproductive and excessive recreational pursuits.
(iii) Juvenile and the revisionist/ natural guardian will report to the Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month.
(iv) The Probation Officer will keep a strict vigil on the activities of the juvenile and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board concerned on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.
Order Date :- 3.8.2023
Suraj Srivastav
