Allahabad High Court
Govind Rajpoot Thru. Father Babu ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 2 February, 2023
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 549 of 2022
Revisionist :- Govind Rajpoot Thru. Father Babu Lal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Pramod Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State.
The instant Criminal Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 through his natural guardian/father Babu Lal has been filed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 18.5.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act II), Unnao in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2022 as well as impugned judgment and order dated 4.2.2022 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Unnao in Case Crime No. 322 of 2020, under Section 376,323,506 I.P.C. and Sections 5M/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Hasanganj, District Unnao.
Learned counsel for the revisionist conflict with law has submitted that revisionist is innocent, he has not committed any offence. The revisionist was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, at the time of occurrence, the age of the revisionist was 17 years 1 month and 6 days. Learned counsel further submits that the FIR was lodged after 8 months of the alleged incident by the father of the victim after due deliberations and consultations but without any plausible explanation for delay. Due to property dispute, this FIR has been lodged against the revisionist. It is further submitted that first informant/father of the victim was examined before the court as PW-1 and in his statement, he clearly stated that a compromise has already arrived at between the parties.
Learned counsel further submits that the revisionist has no criminal history and is languishing in remand home since 17.12.2022. Both the courts concerned have passed the impugned orders without perusing the material and evidence on record and against the provision of law hence, liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submission made by the counsel for the revisionist and submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgement and order.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 has been enacted with object to reform and protect the future career of children below the age of 18 years. The main purpose of this Act is to keep the juvenile out of company and society of habitual criminals and to keep them in place of safety. The parameter and guidelines for assessment of plea of bail of a juvenile has been provided in Section 12 of the Act which is as under:-
"When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety 1[or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution of fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer incharge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board.
When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order."
Thus it is clear that provision for release to a juvenile has overriding effect to any provision contained in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force. According to this provision, a duty has been cost to grant bail to a juvenile unless there is a reasonable ground for plea that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into organization with any known criminal or exposed the said juvenile to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person release would defeat the end of justice.
From perusal of impugned judgement and order passed by the appellate Court as well as of Juvenile Justice Board, it transpires that both the Courts below have passed the impugned judgement and order in cursory manner without placing due reliance on the report submitted by the District Probation Officer as well as facts and circumstances of this case. The aforesaid orders are not in accordance with the mandate of Section 12 of the Act. The impugned judgement and orders are liable to be set aside.
Consequently, the revision succeeds and is allowed. Both the impugned judgement and orders are hereby set aside.
Let the revisionist- Govind Rajpoot through his natural guardian/father Babu Lal be released on bail in the aforesaid criminal case and be given into custody of his natural guardian on furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board concerned subject to following conditions:-
i. That the natural guardian/father of the revisionist will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail, the juvenile will not be permitted to go into contact or association with any known or unknown criminal or exposed to any moral or physical danger and will not indulge in any criminal activity and he will make best effort for improvement of juvenile.
ii. That the revisionist and his natural guardian shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
Order Date :- 2.2.2023
Shravan
