Allahabad High Court
X Juvenile vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 31 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:100732
Court No. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 970 of 2024
Revisionist :- X Juvenile
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Kuldeep Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for revisionist, learned AGA for State and perused the record.
In view of office report dated 13.05.2024, service is deemed sufficient on O.P. No.2.
This revision under section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C is directed against order dated 16.2.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Juvenile Court/Special Judge (POCSO Act), District Bulandshahar in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2024 (X-Minor vs. State of U.P. and another), as well as judgment and order dated 31.1.2024 passed by Principal Magistrate/President Kishor Juvenile Justice Board, District Bulandshahar in Case Crime No.383 of 2023 under Sections 323, 341, 342, 376/34, 120-B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, rejecting the bail application of revisionist (X-Minor).
It is the case of the revisionst that there is no criminal history against the revisionist and he is languishing in jail for the last eight months, certain facts reveals through the instant revision that victim alongwith the revisionist were known to each other for last several days and as such implication of the revisionist is only on the basis of allegation which has been put forward through the naration available in the First Information Report. It is further contended that revisionist has been declared juvenile but his bail application has been rejected by the Board as well as by learned Special Judge in Criminal Appeal without any basis or material giving finding that if the revisionist is released, he is likely to bring him into association with any criminal and expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, hence his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is also submitted that report of the District Probation Officer dated 26.9.2023 is normal.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
The provisions of bail to a juvenile is given in Section 12 of the said Act, which provides as follows:-
"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] 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. "
The aforesaid provision provides that a juvenile accused has to be released on bail unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that 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. There is no basis or material which may bring the case of revisionist within the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act. There is also no material or evidence on record to show that by release on bail, revisionist would come in association with any known criminal or his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. There is also nothing on record to show that the release of the revisionist on bail would defeat the ends of justice.
In these circumstances, the Board was not justified in rejecting the bail application of revisionist. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has also not considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Act in its proper perspective. Thus, both the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be set-aside.
Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The orders impugned dated 31.1.2024 passed by the Board and 16.2.2024 by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Bulandshahar, in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2024 are set aside.
The revisionist - 'X-Minor' son of Ajeet Singh through its natural guardian/father involved in Case Crime No. Case Crime No. 383 of 2023, under Sections 323, 341, 342, 376/34, 120-B IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Gulavathi, District Bulandshahar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond through his natural guardian and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Board concerned.
Order Date :- 31.5.2024
Rakesh
