Allahabad High Court
Neta @ Subedar Thru. His Mother ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. D.M. Sultanpur ... on 29 March, 2023
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 484 of 2021
Revisionist :- Neta @ Subedar Thru. His Mother Smt. Chameli
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. D.M. Sultanpur And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Dhirendra Pratap Singh,Juhi Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mratunjay Singh,Neetu Patel,Rajesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA as well as the counsel for the opposite party no.2.
The instant Criminal Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 through his natural guardian/mother has been filed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 6.2.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2021 as well as impugned judgment and order dated 19.1.2021 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur in Case Crime No. 176 of 2019 under Section 376, 354 IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kurebhar, District Sultanpur.
Learned counsel for revisionist submitted before the Court that the FIR of the alleged incident was lodged by the mother of the victim after 5 days of the said incident without giving any plausible explanation. Due to pressure of his mother, in 161 CrPC and 162 CrPC statement of the victim the allegation of rape was alleged against the revisionist and due to this, the case was converted u/s 376 IPC. Learned counsel for revisionist further submitted that as per Juvenile Justice Board the age of revisionist conflict with law was 17 years and 5 months at the time of occurrence. He further submitted that as per medical examination report dated 29.5.2019, no mark of any injury was seen on the body of the victim. T
Learned counsel further submits that the revisionist has no criminal history and is languishing in remand home since 16.7.2019. Both the courts concerned have passed the impugned order without perusing the material and evidence on record and against the provision of law hence, liable to be quashed.
Learned AGA as well as the counsel for respondent no.2 vehemently opposed and submitted that the victim was minor and the revisionist committed forcefully sexual assault on the victim. The adverse report was submitted by district probationary officer in relating to conduct and in that report it is declared that parents have no effective control.
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 - Neta @ Subedar through His Mother Smt. Chameli 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/mother 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 :- 29.3.2023
Arpan
