Allahabad High Court
X- Juvenile vs State Of Up 3 Others on 3 May, 2024
Author: Renu Agarwal
Bench: Renu Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:79643
Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 646 of 2024
Revisionist :- X- Juvenile
Opposite Party :- State Of Up 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mary Puncha (Sheeb Jose),Mohd. Kalim
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Daya Shankar,G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party No.2, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material available on record.
3. 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 13.12.2023 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 2023 and the order dated 18.10.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh rejecting the bail application of the revisionist in Case Crime No.317 of 2023 under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act Police Station Devgaon District Azamgarh.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has been declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board. The aforesaid order has attained finality since no appeal has been preferred against the order of the Juvenile Justice Board declaring the revisionist as juvenile. It is also submitted that as per medical report there is no internal or external injury found on the person of the present victim. As per medical report no spermatozoa is found. It is also submitted that the FIR is lodged after the delay of one day and no explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR has been given by the prosecution. It is also submitted that the revisionist is aged about 14 years whereas the victim is aged about 16 years. It is submitted that the victim is in better position to manipulate the revisionist. It is further submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C had levelled allegations against the revisionst but the medical report did not support such allegation. It is also submitted that the revisionist has no prior criminal history and is the student of class VIII. There is nothing in the report of probation officer that there is any moral, physical and psychological danger to the revisionist or if the revisionist is released on bail he shall come in contact with more criminal. 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.
5. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 submitted that he wants to file reply to the rejoinder affidavit, however the Court is reluctant to grant further time and keep the matter pending after the pleadings between parties have been exchanged. On merits learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 could not controvert the points argued by learned counsel for the revisionist.
6. A perusal of records goes to show that medical report goes to show that no rape has been committed upon the victim as no external or internal injury was found, no spermatozoa is found on the private parts of the victim, the revisionist has no criminal history apart from the instant case. The revisionist has been declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board. The order of the Juvenile Justice Board declaring the revisionist as juvenile has not been challenged in appeal. 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."
7. After going through the report of the Probation Officer, it is clear that the revisionist has no criminal history or if the revisionist is released on bail, he will come in contact with more criminal and there will be moral, physical and psychological danger to the revisionist the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the first appellate court rejected the bail of the revisionist on the ground of gravity of offence and failed to discuss provisions of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act 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.
8. In view of the above the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.12.2023 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 2023 and the order dated 18.10.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh rejecting the bail application of the revisionist in Case Crime No.317 of 2023 under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act Police Station Devgaon District Azamgarh are hereby set aside.
9. 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 guardian/ father or 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;
10. 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 :- 3.5.2024
Nadeem
