X- Juvenile vs State Of U.P. And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 15187 ALL

Allahabad High Court

X- Juvenile vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 May, 2024

Author: Renu Agarwal

Bench: Renu Agarwal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:78693
 
Court No. - 83
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1309 of 2024
 
Revisionist :- X- Juvenile
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the 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 23.02.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2024 and the order dated 12.02.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Agra rejecting the bail application of the revisionist in Case Crime No.269 of 2023 under Sections 307 IPC Police Station Sainya District Agra.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has been declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board. 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 Juvenile has attained finality. It is also submitted that the incident occurred on 22.11.2023 whereas the FIR was lodged on 25.11.2023. It is also submitted that no plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR has been given by the prosecution. It is also submitted that the injured sustained injured while he was playing with the revisionist. It is also submitted that as per medical report the injured sustained abrasion 6x4com over right side of neck, abrasion 4x3 cm over left side of next, abrasion 2x1cm over right side of mandible, abrasion 1x1 cm over left side of mandible caused by throttling by Noid, it is further reported in the medical report that the injuries were caused by throttling by Noids, injuries were about 24 hours old and type under strangulation. The revisionist has been implicated in the instant case only out of family dispute. The Juvenile Justice Board rejected the bail application of the revisionist on the ground that if the revisionist is released on bail, there is chance that he may come in contact with more criminals and there is moral, physical and psychological danger to the revisionist. It is submitted that the aforesaid conclusion has been arrived at without any basis. It is also submitted that the report of Probation Officer does not assign any adverse entry against the revisionist. 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 AGA on the other hand has opposed the revision and submitted that allegation of commission of heinous offence, medical report corroborate the allegations made against the revisionist, specific role has been assigned to the revisionist in the FIR, statement of injured as well as statements of injured and informant, hence the revision is opposed.

5. A perusal of FIR goes to show that dispute arose between the revisionist and the injured over first getting hair cut after which the revisionist assaulted the injured and dragged him to nearby place and strangulated the injured. The injured in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C has corroborated the prosecution case, as per medical report the injured sustained abrasion 6x4com over right side of neck, abrasion 4x3 cm over left side of next, abrasion 2x1cm over right side of mandible, abrasion 1x1 cm over left side of mandible caused by throttling by Noid, it is further reported in the medical report that the injuries were caused by throttling by Noids, injuries were about 24 hours old and type under strangulation, the revisionist has no criminal history apart from the instant 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. Juvenile Justice Act is a beneficial legislation and is meant for providing an opportunity to the child in conflict with law to reform . Considering the fact that FIR is lodged with delay of three days, there is nothing adverse in the report of Probation Officer against the revisionist, the revisionist has no criminal history apart from this case, there is no basis for arriving at the conclusion that if the revisionist is released on bail he will come in contact with more criminal and there may be moral, physical and psychological danger to the revisionist, 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.

7. In view of the above the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated dated 23.02.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2024 and the order dated 12.02.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Agra rejecting the bail application of the revisionist in Case Crime No.269 of 2023 under Sections 307 IPC Police Station Sainya District Agra 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 :- 2.5.2024/Nadeem