Allahabad High Court
X Shahnavaz vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, ... on 13 May, 2024
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36786
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 237 of 2023
Revisionist :- X Shahnavaz
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vinay Misra,Farooq Ayoob,Nazmul Hasan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
None appears for the complainant although notices are served.
C.M. Application No.IA/1/2023
This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the criminal revision.
On due consideration to the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay, the delay seems to have been explained satisfactorily.
Accordingly, the application is allowed. The delay is condoned.
Order on Petition
The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the judgment and order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur and order dated 02.11.2022 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Juvenile Court, Court No.11-Sitapur in Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2022.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that revisionist was juvenile at the time of offence aged about 17 years, 10 months and 11 days. The victim has made improvement while giving statement under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she has not alleged rape against anyone however, while giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has alleged the complicity of five persons, there is no corroborative injury in the medical examination report, its a case of false implication.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that therevisionist has been falsely implicated, he has no criminal history however, he is in jail since 23.04.2022.
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 therevisionist 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 therevisionist was a juvenile on the date of occurrence; does not appear to be prone to criminal proclivity or criminal psychology, he 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 applicant undertakes to address the statutory concerns expressed in section 12 of the Act, as to the safety and well being of the applicant, upon his release.
Having considered the submission made by the parties and taking into consideration the impugned judgment and order 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 dated30.08.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur and order dated 02.11.2022 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Juvenile Court, Court No.11-Sitapur in Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2022, 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, Sitapur 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 :- 13.5.2024
Saurabh Yadav/-
