Allahabad High Court
Xxxx(Juvenile) vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 May, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:81133
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5941 of 2023
Revisionist :- Xxxx(Juvenile)
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shri Krishan Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Dubey,G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A., Mr Anurag Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and also perused the record.
2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 30.09.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Mainpuri in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2020, whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist has been dismissed and for quashing the order dated 17.08.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Mainpuri whereby the bail application of the revisionist (Juvenile) has been rejected in Case Crime No. 426 of 2022, under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Bhogaon, District Mainpuri.
3. As per prosecution version, a written complaint was lodged to the effect that "Today, on 03-9-2022, at around 9-30 am in the morning, son of brother of informant, whose name is Prince, received a call from 9058740776 and 9719034765 from Bhogaon Kotwali and they asked whether Sunny is your brother, then he said that yes, he is my brother and the police also asked information about him and they told that Sunny has died. The police also told to inform at his house. Thereafter, the informant along with others went to Bhogaon police station and came to know that Sunny's dead body has been sent to the post mortem house in Mainpuri and thereafter they reached Mainpuri Post Mortem House, Mainpuri. It is alleged that thereafter SI Amit Kumar got the Panchnama of the dead body filled and post mortem of the dead body was done and after post-mortem, Sunny's dead body was handed over to them. It is also alleged that about 22 years ago, Sunny's mother was murdered by Sunny's father Arvind Kumar, since then Sunny was living his life in his maternal house, and at that time Arvind Kumar, his father Mahavir Singh and others were sent to jail in the case of murder of Sunny's mother. At that time Sunny was about 2 years old. It is alleged that after some time, a compromise was made by the Panch and 8 bighas of land was given in Sunny's name and his late maternal grandfather Mahavir Singh, R/o Village Jalalpur, Gadhiya Chhinkaura was made the guardian of the said property. It is further alleged that about eight months ago, Sunny had sold his share of 2 bighas of land and set-up his own business (a shoe shop). It is further alleged that when Sunny sold the land, Sunny's father Arvind Kumar and step brother Monu, son of Arvind Kumar threatened to kill him if he sold the land and when Sunny came to his grandmother's house on the festival of Rakshabandhan, he informed about the above matter. It is alleged that he told the informant that his live is in danger and something could happen to him at any time. Suspicion has been raised about murder of Sunny on his father Arvind Kumar son of Mahavir Singh and Sunny's step brother Monu son of Arvind Kumar and two others."
4. It is alleged that an application was given to the Juvenile Justice Board Mainpuri by his guardian mother Pushpa on 19-09-2022 to the effect that her son is accused in the above mentioned crime. The above incident is dated 03-09-2022 and the date of birth of the applicant's son in the high school mark sheet is 09-12-2004, according to which his age at the time of the incident is 17 years 6 months. On that basis, the revisionist has been declared a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board Mainpuri by order dated 04-07-2023. His age at the time of the incident was determined to be 16 years 3 months 22 days.
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the co accused Arvind Kumar has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 19039 of 2023. Lastly it is argued that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and except the evidence of last seen of the deceased in the company of revisionist and co-accused Arvind Kumar as per statement of Dharmendra and Satyendra, there is no other direct evidence against the revisionist. It is next contended that revisionist has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that bail application of the Juvenile has been rejected primarily taking into account the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed without there being any substance. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist was juvenile on the date of incident. It is further argued that once the person has already been declared Juvenile, his bail cannot be rejected on account of gravity of offence committed, if there is no other reason as required for not granting bail. It is next argued on behalf of revisionist that there exists no ground as specified in Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act for rejection of bail application. He further submits that the orders passed by the appellate court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board do not disclose any concrete reason for concluding that release of revisionist would bring him in association with bad elements of society and his release would expose him morally, physically and psychologically. He further submitted that the report of the District Probation Officer discloses that the revisionist has no criminal tendency nor has any criminal history on record and the said fact has not been considered by the Juvenile Justice Board.
6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
7. Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the bail. It is not a relevant factor while considering to grant bail to the juvenile. It has been so held by this Court in the cases of Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB); Abdullah @ Abdul Hassan Vs. State of U.P. and Others [2015 (90) ACC 204]; Maroof Vs. State of U.P. and Another [2015 (6) ADJ 203]; Criminal Revision No. 112 of 2015 (Suraj @ Ashok Sukla Thru. Father Mahendra Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 2010(71) ACC 209 decided on 02.07.2015.
8. It is evident that there is no satisfactory material on record to conclude that the release of juvenile would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that it would defeat the ends of justice or would bring him into association of known criminals. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that revisionist deserves to be released on bail to his parents or legal guardians in absence thereof.
9. Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed, impugned judgments/orders passed by the courts below are hereby set aside.
10. Let revisionist (minor) be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 426 of 2022, under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Bhogaon, District Mainpuri, on furnishing a personal bond by either of his parents and in absence by his legal guardians two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned and subject to following conditions:-
(i) That the natural guardian of the revisionist 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 natural guardian will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.
(ii) The revisionist and his natural guardian will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Wednesday of every calendar month commencing with the first Wednesday of June 2024 and if during any calendar month the first Wednesday falls on a holiday, then on the next following working day.
(iii) The District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the revisionist and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board concerned on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.
(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or the certified copy issued by the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.
(v) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(vi) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
11. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the court below is directed to make every possible endeavour to conclude the trial of the aforesaid case within a period of six months from today without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
Order Date :- 6.5.2024
RavindraKSingh
