Sonu Yadev Thru. His Father Ram ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8929 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 677 of 2022
 

 
Revisionist :- Sonu Yadev Thru. His Father Ram Naresh Yadev
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shailesh Kumar Singh,Ashish Kumar Rastogi,Lalji Prasad Shukla
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

Notice has duly been served upon the opposite party no. 2 but no one has put in appearance his behalf.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, and Ms. Mamta, 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 Sri Ram Naresh Yadav has been filed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 23.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act), Juvenile Court, Court No. 11, Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2022 as well as impugned judgment and order dated 11.05.2022 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri in Case Crime No. 657 of 2019, under Sections 376, 323, and 506 IPC, and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

Learned counsel for revisionist has submitted that incident took place on 8.6.2019, FIR of this case was lodged on 10.6.2019 at 5:48 p.m. after two days of the incident after consultation and due deliberation by the mother of the victim. Further submission is that as per allegation levelled in the FIR, the revisionist conflict with law inflicted the injury to the victim due to which the victim got injured and blood oozes out due to injuries but on 10.6.2019 when the medical examination of victim was conducted then no visible mark of any external and internal injury was found on her body. Hymen was found ruptured, torn and healed. The victim stated before doctor that rape was committed by the revisionist.

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 9 months and 23 days at the time of alleged incident. It is further submitted that witnesses of fact i.e. mother of the victim, father of the victiom and victim herself has been examined before the court concerned therefore, there is no chance of tampering the evidence.

It is further submitted that report of the District Probation Officer is not against the juvenile conflict with law. Further submission is that bail to juvenile conflict with law can be refused only if there is possibility that after release he may come into the contact of known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice. It is further submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned sessions judge did not consider the aforesaid fact and rejected the bail in a routine manner. It is further submitted that as per provisions of Section 18 (g) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015 the revisionist can be sent to remand home only for the maximum period of three years. The revisionist is in remand home 13.06.2019. No adverse report was submitted by the District Probation Officer. It is further submitted that 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.

Ms. Mamta, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submission made by the counsel for the revisionist and submitted that at the time of incident, the victim was aged about 13 years. There is no reason to be falsely implicated the revisionist. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgement and orders.

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (Act) 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 - Sonu Yadav through his natural guardian/father Sri Ram Naresh Yadav 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 :- 27.3.2023

Virendra