Allahabad High Court
Juvenile X vs State Of Up. And Another on 28 August, 2023
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:173401
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 485 of 2022
Revisionist :- Juvenile X
Opposite Party :- State Of Up. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Siya Ram Verma,Rajesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rakesh Dubey
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
List revised. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party even in the revised call.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist through his mother under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act-2015 (hereinafter referred to as "J.J. Act, 2015) to allow the present revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 19.12.2020 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Nagar (Stte of U.P. vs. Anshu @ Vikas Pandey) in Case Crime No.406/2020 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar rejecting the bail application of the revisionist as well as appellate order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge POCSO Act/Additional Session Judge Court No.25 Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.05/2021 (Anshu @ Vikas Pandey vs. State of U.P.) dismissing the appeal and affirming the order dated 19.12.2020 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Nagar and also prays to release the revisionist/delinquent on bail in the aforesaid case.
It is submitted that in this case the delinquent/applicant was aged about 17 years at the time of alleged incident. Further submitted that the victim was aged 14 years who went away from her house being annoyed with the members of her family and in the way present delinquent met to her and she accompanied him and also stayed for a day in his company in the house of his sister. It is further submitted that physical relations were also established between both of them and they were ready to enter into marriage but later on the revisionist/delinquent denied form marriage and she went to Sankatmochan Temple from where some other boy Atul Mishra met her and then she came back to her house. This fact was also disclosed by the victim herself in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. It shows that she was volunteer and no any force or violence was used against her will. It is also submitted that she disclosed that prior to the alleged incident she had also gone to Mumbai once being aggrieved with her parents. In medical examination report no any sign of penetration was found suggesting commission of rape with the victim. The report submitted by the D.P.O. is also not adverse for the present delinquent even though the juvenility of the delinquent was not considered either by the J.J. Board or by the appellate court and also the provisions as contained u/s 12 of the aforesaid Act were not considered by the courts below while passing the aforesaid orders. The delinquent is in Juvenile Care Home since 19.07.2020 (i.e. more than three years) and his psychology is being affected adversely, therefore, requested to set aside the orders passed by the J.J. Board as well as appellate court and allow the present criminal revision as the orders passed by the courts below cannot be said to be in conformity with law.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the provisions as contained u/s 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, the report submitted by the District Probation Officer, the statement of victim made u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate and the period present delinquent remained in child care home, 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 19.12.2020 and the appellate court dated 10.02.2021 are, hereby, set aside and the present criminal revision is hereby, allowed.
It is directed that delinquent/applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case on executing person bond by the revisionist (mother 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 natural guardian/mother 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 mother will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.
(ii) The natural guardian/mother 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 natural guardian/mother 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 :- 28.8.2023
Ashok Gupta
