X vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 295 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 70
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3666 of 2022
 

 
Revisionist :- X
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rakesh Kumar Tripathi,Manoj Kumar Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ashish Mani Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.6.2022 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2022 as well as order dated 7.5.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board in Case Crime No. 143 of 2022 under sections 307 and 506 IPC, Police Station Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir nagar, whereby both the Courts below have rejected the bail application moved on behalf of the revisionist.

In this case, an F.I.R. was lodged on 15.3.2022 at the instance of informant Riyaz Khan in which it is stated that on 14.3.2022 his son Rehan was attacked by accused Sanskar, Ashish Yadav, Ashutosh Upadhyay and their three to four companions (revisionist) near Nedula crossing by hockey & iron rod with intention to kill. Son of the informant received serious injuries in the incident and he was initially brought to District Hospital and thereafter referred to higher center. CT-scan report of brain of injured reveals a linear un-displaced fracture of squamous part of left temporal bone.

Submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that both the forums i.e. Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court have not taken into consideration the law which is provided for dealing with the bail application of the revisionist and rejected the bail of the revisionist erroneously only on the ground of seriousness of the offence. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the revisionist nor at his pointing out. Date of birth of the revisionist is 10.12.2005. He has passed high-school examination but he could not appear in Intermediate Examination due to false implication in the present case. Age of the accused is calculated as 16 years three months four days on the date of incident by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 18.4.2022 whereby he was declared juvenile on the date of incident. It is further submitted that injured was firstly brought to C.H.C., Khalilabad and his particulars are mentioned in registered at Sr. No. E-258 and it is stated that he got injured due to bike accident. Name of one accused Sanskar Singh was deleted during investigation on the basis of statement of injured and injured has named one Karan Yadav in place of Sanksar Singh as one of the assailant. One Aryan Vishwas, who has been examined as eye-witness, has also named Karan Yadav as one of the assailant in place of Sanksar Singh. The said Karan Yadav has already been released on bail by orders of court of Session vide order dated 24.11.2022 in Bail Application No. 1520 of 2022, copy of bail order is filed today for perusal of the court. Accused-revisionist has not been assigned any specific role in the offence and all the three accused persons have been assigned general role in F.I.R. and in statements of injured and witnesses. There is nothing on record that in case, revisionist is released on bail, he shall expose himself to physical, moral or psychological danger or that he would come in association with some known criminal and that ends of justice would stand defeated on his release on bail. Revisionist has no prior criminal history.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application and submits that revisionist was aged about 16 years at the time of incident and his case comes under the purview of 16 to 18 years of age, hence revisionist may be tried by the Children court. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by Juvenile Justice Board and Appellant Court.

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 is quoted hereinbelow:-

"(1) 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.

(2) 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.

(3) 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."

On perusal of record, it appears that there is no specific averment in social investigation report filed by District Probation Officer in support of the allegation that in case of his release on bail, revisionist would expose himself to physical, moral or psychological danger or that it would defeat the ends of justice or would bring him into association of known criminals on his release on bail. General averments have been made in the report that accused is a minor and it appears that he is not in a position to differentiate between right and wrong. In this report, it is also stated that he needs to be properly educated. There is nothing against parents and family members of the juvenile in this report. Revisionist belongs to family of agriculturist.

Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as social investigation report of District Probation Officer concerned, it cannot be said that release of juvenile on bail is likely to defeat the ends of justice. From perusal of impugned orders, it is not found that some known criminal has been identified in which company, juvenile is likely to come in contact, in case he is released on bail. This Court is not satisfied with the reasoning and conclusion arrived by the Appellate Court as well as juvenile Justice Board in impugned orders. Both the courts below have failed to consider the special provision for bail to juvenile as gravity of offence is not relevant consideration for refusal or grant of bail to juvenile as per provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 and rejected the bail applications of juvenile on the ground of seriousness of the offence.

In view of the above, this is found to be a fit case for grant of bail. The revision deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of Juvenile Justice Board dated 7.5.2022 as well as order dated 17.6.2022 of the appellate court are set aside. Criminal revision is allowed.

Let the Juvenile revisionist- "X" be released on bail in Case Crime No. 143 of 2022 under sections 307 and 506 IPC, Police Station Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir nagar, through his natural guardian/ grandfather on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board concerned subject to the following conditions:-

(i) That the natural guardian of the revisionist 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 natural guardian will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.

(ii) The revisionist and his natural guardian will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month for a period of six months from the date of release on bail and if any adverse information comes, D.P.O. shall inform about the same to trial court.

(iii) That the natural guardian/grandfather shall furnish an undertaking that revisionist will pursue his studies at the appropriate level which revisionist would be encouraged to do besides other constructive activities.

A copy of the instant order shall be transmitted the court concerned for compliance.

Order Date :- 4.1.2023

A.P. Pandey