Allahabad High Court
Juvenile - X vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 19 December, 2023
Author: Subhash Chandra Sharma
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:240357
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3252 of 2022
Revisionist :- Juvenile - X
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Yadav,Onkar Nath,Sanjeev Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suneel Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard Sri Onkar Nath, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Suneel Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 alongwith learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist through his father under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "J.J. Act, 2015) to allow the present revision and quash/set-aside the impugned judgment and order dated 14.07.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Etah in Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2022 (CNR UPET 0100 2970 2022) [Dheeraj Versus State of U.P. and others] as well as order dated 25.05.2022 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Etah in Bail Application No.19 of 2022 [State of U.P. Versus Dheeraj] arising out of Case Crime No.89 of 2021, under Sections 376, 506, 120B I.P.C. and Section 4 of Protection of Children from the Sexual Offences Act, Police Station-Malawan, District-Etah rejecting the bail application of the revisionist and also prays to release the revisionist/delinquent on bail in the aforesaid case.
It is submitted that in this case the revisionist/delinquent/applicant was aged about 16 years and was juvenile at the time of alleged incident. Further submitted that as per allegation in F.I.R. rape was committed by the revisionist with the victim, who was also aged about 16 years, while dragging her in a vacant room, which was locked from outside by other co-accused persons. The incident was narrated to her parents by the victim herself, as a result the present F.I.R. lodged. It is further submitted that more than two and half years have elapsed, but trial has not likely to be concluded in near future since till now only one witness has been examined. It is also submitted that in medical report no any injury was found on the person of the victim to prove that rape was committed on her by the revisionist. There was no any fresh injury on her person to suggest the commission of such incident. The F.S.L. report was called for, but it could not be made available by the prosecution till now. 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 22.05.2021 (i.e. more than two and half 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 counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the revisionist has committed rape on the victim, who was aged about 16 years at the time of incident and in case revisionist is released, he will come in association of hardened criminals.
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 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 25.05.2022 and the appellate court dated 14.07.2022 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 (father 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/father 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 father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.
(ii) The natural guardian/father 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/father 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 :- 19.12.2023
Sunil Kr. Gupta
