X- Juvenile vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 14986 ALL

Allahabad High Court

X- Juvenile vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 1 May, 2024

Author: Renu Agarwal

Bench: Renu Agarwal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:78884
 
Court No. - 83
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1190 of 2024
 

 
Revisionist :- X- Juvenile
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Piyush Patel,Pradeep Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Pandey,G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State and perused the entire material brought on record.

2. Instant revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015 has been preferred assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 21.02.2024 passed by learned Child Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Maharajganj and order dated 23.01.2024 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Maharajganj in Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2024 arising out of case crime No. 245 of 2023 related to inquiry No. 13 of 2024 under Section 363, 366, 376(3) I.P.C. and 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station-Nichlaul, District-Maharajganj, by means of which the bail application of the revisionist has been rejected.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has been declared juvenile vide order dated 19.12.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, Exclusive Court (POCSO Act), Maharajganj and the order declaring revisionist a juvenile has not been challenged in any court hence the order dated 19.12.2023 has attained finality. Allegations levelled in the F.I.R. is that on 29.05.2023 when the complainant went to her neighbor for some work her daughter along with daughter of the neighbor were at house of informant then the revisionist along with one other co-accused enticed them away. It is further submitted that both the victims have not corroborated the version of the prosecution in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. rather they stated they went away with the revisionist along with co-accused on their own will. In the statements of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. victims stated that they themselves went away with the revisionist and co-accused and married them in temple. It is further contended that victims have refused for their medical examination. As per the report of the District Probation Officer, the revisionist has no criminal history and because of unstable financial condition he could not get higher education. It is lastly contended that no evidence is produced by the prosecution to the effect that if the revisionist is released on bail his moral, physical or psychological condition will be imperiled. There is nothing adverse to the present delinquent in the report as submitted by the District Probation Officer. The provisions as contained under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act had not been considered in correct perspective by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as appellate court while rejecting the appeal which cannot be said to be in conformity with the law, hence, the both the orders impugned suffers from illegality and are liable to be set-aside.

4. Learned AGA on the other hand has opposed the revision and submitted that allegation of commission of heinous offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act has been levelled against the revisionist, hence the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and does not warrant any interference.

5. I have heard the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the entire material brought on record. Perusal of the record reveals that the victims have not corroborated the version of the F.I.R. in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., moreover, the victims have denied their medical examination. Revisionist has no criminal history apart from the present case. 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."

6. A perusal of the aforesaid goes to show that the legislative is clearly of the view that juvenile should be given an opportunity for reformation. Revisionist has hobby in painting and he also has interest in technical education, however, due to financial condition of his family he has only completed Class-V and he is doing labour work along with parents. Considering the fact that victims have denied their medical examination and the allegations made in the FIR does not corroborate with the statement of victims recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The Juvenile Justice Board has not discussed the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act in correct perspective 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 in correct perspective 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.

7. In view of the above the revision is allowed. The impugned orders dated 21.02.2024 passed by learned Child Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Maharajganj and order dated 23.01.2024 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Maharajganj in Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2024 arising out of case crime No. 245 of 2023 related to inquiry No. 13 of 2024 under Section 363, 366, 376(3) I.P.C. and 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station-Nichlaul, District-Maharajganj are hereby set aside.

8. 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;

9. 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

Karan