Allahabad High Court
Juvenile Delinquent A vs State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 10 May, 2024
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36340
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1411 of 2023
Revisionist :- Juvenile Delinquent A
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Dinesh Kumar Ojha
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Notices to the complainant has been served.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. None appears for informant.
The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the judgment and order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Case No.179 of 2023 and order dated 04.12.2023 passed by Special Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Juvenile Court, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.93 of 2023.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that victim while giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has made improvement. Medical does not support the prosecution case and no fresh injury has been found on the private part of the victim. Revisionist was 14 years old at the time of incident. The D.P.O. report is in favour of the revisionist. No adverse opinion has been given by the D.P.O. against the present revisionist. Revisionist is confined in the protection house since 25.07.2023 having no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the present criminal revision. It is submitted, the incident reported is true and it is wrong to say that the allegations made against the applicant are false and motivated. Also, reliance has been placed on the findings recorded in the bail rejection orders to submit that the instant revision may be dismissed.
It is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Act. Under Section 12 of the Act, the prayer for bail of a juvenile may be rejected 'if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile 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'.
The court has to see whether the opinion of the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and orders are in consonance with the provision of the Act. Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail may be refused to a juvenile offender. These are:-
(i) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or
(ii) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or
(iii) that his release would defeat the ends of justice?
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 Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB). It has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions of this court.
Thus, it remains largely undisputed that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of occurrence; does not appear to be prone to criminal proclivity or criminal psychology, in light of the observations of the D.P.O; does not have a criminal history; has been in confinement for an unduly long period of time. Even otherwise, there does not appear to exist any factor or circumstance mentioned in section 12 of the Act as may dis-entitle the applicant to grant of bail, at this stage. The revisionist undertakes to address the statutory concerns expressed in section 12 of the Act, as to the safety and well being of the revisionist, upon his release.
Having considered the submission made by the parties and taking into consideration the impugned judgment and order and the report of the District Probation Officer as also the legal proposition in reference to Section 12 as also Section 3(i)(iv)(v) and (xiv) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, I am of the considered view that the learned lower court has committed material irregularity in arriving at the conclusion that the release of the revisionist on bail will defeat the ends of justice and there is possibility that the revisionist may fall in danger physically, morally and psychologically, if released on bail.
In view of the observations made above, the present criminal revision is allowed.
The judgment and order dated15.09.2023 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Case No.179 of 2023 and order dated 04.12.2023 passed by Special Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Juvenile Court, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.93 of 2023, are set aside and the revisionist is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh subject to the condition that parent of the revisionist will take care of his education and betterment and will not allow to indulge him in any criminal activity and will keep constant check on his activities. Both the sureties are directed to be close relatives of the revisionist juvenile.
Order Date :- 10.5.2024
Saurabh Yadav/-
