X- Juvenile vs State Of Up And 3Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 14943 ALL

Allahabad High Court

X- Juvenile vs State Of Up And 3Others on 1 May, 2024

Author: Renu Agarwal

Bench: Renu Agarwal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:77601
 
Court No. - 83
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 924 of 2024
 

 
Revisionist :- X- Juvenile
 
Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Santosh Kukmar Tiwari
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuldeep Kumar Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party No.2, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record.

2. The present criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children, Act 2015) has been filed against the judgment and order dated 27.10.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Shahjahanpur in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2023 and the order dated 29.08.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Shahjahanpur rejecting the bail application of the revisionist in Case Crime No.165 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366, 376-D IPC,5(G)/6 POCSO Act, Section 3(2) V S.C/S.T Act Police Station Kotwali District Shahjahanpur.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has been declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board on 19.08.2023. It is also submitted that no appeal has been preferred against the order of the Juvenile Justice Board declaring the revisionist as juvenile. Hence the order of the Juvenile Justice Board declaring the revisionist as juvenile has attained finality. It is also submitted that the according to the content of FIR the revisionist along with co-accused Puran Lal enticed the daughter of informant and his daughter left her home along with Rs. 10,000/- Jhala, Payal and mala. During the investigation statement of victim were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C in which she did not support the prosecution version and stated that she knows Puran Lal since last three years and she left the house of her father of her own wishes to live with Puran Lal but when she is informed that the case has been registered she herself came back to her house. The statement of victim was again recorded and she stated that she went away with Puran Lal of her own sweet will where she remained with Puran Lal for sight seeing who took with him Vikas also. The statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the victim did not disclose the name of present revisionist. It is also submitted that victim is major and of 19 years of age. It is also submitted that the medical report does not support prosecution case. The revisionist has no criminal history apart from this case. It is also submitted that there is nothing on record to suggest that if the revisionist is released on bail, he will come in contact with more criminal and there is moral, psychological and physical danger to the revisionist. The revisionist is in custody since 29.06.2023. The Juvenile Justice Board has not discussed the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act and rejected the bail application of the revisionist. The appellant court also has not discussed the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act and affirmed the order of Juvenile Justice Board. It is also submitted that if the revisionist is released on bail, he will not involve in any criminal activities. Hence it is prayed to set aside the order passed by Juvenile Justice Board as well as the POCSO Court and to enlarge the revisionist on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA on the other hand has opposed the revision and submitted that the role assigned to the present revisionist is that he was present along with the co-accused, there is moral, psychological and physical danger to the revisionist as if the revisionist is released on bail he may come in contact with more criminals, hence the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and does not warrant any interference.

5. A perusal of records goes to show that the victim left the house of her father along with gold and sliver jewellery with the intent to live with co-accused Puran Lal. There is no allegation of rape against the present revisionist. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C has assigned the role of accompanying co-accused Puran when they were going for sightseeing, no allegation of sexual harassment is made against the present revisionist. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C name of present revisionist is not disclosed. Medical report does not corroborate the prosecution case. As per medical report no sign of suggestive of penetration of vagina is found. As per pathological report no spermatozoa is found, hence, medical report also does not support the prosecution version.

6. I have also perused the report of Probation Officer which goes to show that the revisionist is a student, the financial condition of the family of revisionist is very poor therefore, the revisionist along with his studies works at motor cycle repairing shop at wage of Rs. 20 per day. There is nothing suggesting that if the revisionist is released on bail, he may come in contact with more criminal.

7. From the perusal of impugned order it transpires that Juvenile Justice Board and first appellate court rejected the bail application of revisionist on the ground that revisionist has committed heinous crime. Gravity of offence is not a ground for rejecting the bail application of the juvenile.

8. Juvenile Justice Act is a beneficial legislation and is meant for development of a child in conflict with law so that he may be absorbed in society and devlopment. Gravity of offence cannot be a ground to deny the bail of juvenile and the bail of juvenile can be rejected only on the basis of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be apposite to reproduce Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act:

"12. Bail of juvenile

(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 [or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person] [ Inserted by Act 33 of 2006, Section 10 (w.e.f. 22.8.2006).] 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."

9. A perusal of impugned order it is mentioned in the judgment that if the revisionist is released on bail, he shall come in contact with more criminals and there are moral, physical and psychological danger to the revisionist, however, no cogent piece of evidence is support of such finding has been made in the impugned order. There is nothing in the report of Probation Officer also suggesting that there are moral, physical and psychological danger to the revisionist. The revisionist has no criminal history apart from this case which goes to show that the revisionist is not a criminal minded person. The revisionist is in custody since 29.06.2023. The Juvenile Justice Board has not discussed the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act and rejected the bail application of the revisionist. The appellant court also has not discussed the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act and affirmed the order of Juvenile Justice Board, the guardian of the revisionist undertake that if the revisionist is released on bail, he shall take care of the revisionist and shall see to it that the revisionist is not involved in any criminal activities in future.

10. In view of the above the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.10.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Shahjahanpur in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2023 and the order dated 29.08.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Shahjahanpur rejecting the bail application of the revisionist in Case Crime No.165 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366, 376-D IPC,5(G)/6 POCSO Act, Section 3(2) V S.C/S.T Act Police Station Kotwali District Shahjahanpur are hereby set aside.

11. The Juvenile Justice Board concerned is directed to release the revisionist on bail upon his father/mother furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board concerned subject to the following conditions:

(i) that the natural guardian father/mother 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 father/mother will ensure that the juvenile will not indulge in any criminal activity;

(ii) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;

(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall also file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court;

12. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court/J.J.Board shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, uninfluenced by any finding or observation whatsoever in this order.

(Renu Agarwal,J.)

Order Date :- 1.5.2024

Nadeem