Allahabad High Court
X- Juvenile vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 November, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:180110
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6501 of 2023
Revisionist :- X- Juvenile
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashish Singh,Tawvab Ahmed Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vivek Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
The present criminal revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.11.2023 passed by Children Court, Court No. 3, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2023, and against the order dated 30.08.2023 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut in Bail Application No. 109 of 2023 (State of U.P. vs. Juvenile "X" son of Dharmendra through mother Seema) arising out of Case Crime No. 113 of 2023, under Sections 147, 149, 307, 341, 352, 323, 504, 506, 120B and Section 9(1)A(1), 25/27 Arms Act, police station Parikshitgarh, district Meerut, whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer of bail of accused-revisionist.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P., counsel for opposite party No. 2 and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 12.04.2023 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 30.08.2023 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 15 years, 10 months and 8 days on the date of alleged incident. It is next submitted that aforesaid order declaring the revisionist as juvenile has attained finality because the same has not been challenged by the opposite party No.2. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 12.04.2023.
As to the offence alleged, it is submitted that the revisionist has falsely been implicated in this case with ulterior motive. In this regard, it is further stated that proper investigation was not conducted by the police and thus the revisionist had wrongly been charged with the offence. The F.I.R. has been lodged against six name accused persons and 3-4 unknown persons including the revisionist. In the F.I.R. general role of firing has been attributed to Dharmendra, Satendra, present revisionist, Anuj, Atul and 2-3 unknown persons, but in the medical examination report of the injured, only two injuries have been found on his body. Thereafter, the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the injured was recorded, in which he has assigned the role of causing firearm injury to the present revisionist, who is juvenile.
It is further being emphasized that the revisionist does not have any criminal antecedent to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no material on record for believing that the release of revisionist is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, psychological danger, therefore, aforesaid impugned orders are not sustainable and liable to be set aside and revisionist is entitled to be released on bail in view of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015.
Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 vehemently opposed the present revision. It has thus been submitted, merely because the revisionist is a juvenile it would not entitle him to bail without going into the gravity of the offence, the nature of the crime. It is also contended that the bail sought for has been rightly refused in view of Section 12(1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015. Lastly, it is submitted that apart from this case, the revisionist has criminal history of one case, which has been explained in paragraph No. 4 to the counter affidavit dated 23.02.2024 filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2.
Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is true that a juvenile offender is not entitled as of right to be enlarged on bail, irrespective of any other fact or circumstance, however, it also cannot be denied that in view of specific and special legislative intent and intervention, refusal of bail in the case of a juvenile may be made only for specific reasons and circumstance. Otherwise, a general legislative presumption does appear to exist under the scheme of the Act that the welfare of alleged juvenile offender would be better served without he being confined for long duration. Here, the revisionist has remained in juvenile home since 12.04.2023 against the maximum sentence of three years in case of conviction.
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 Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Section 12 of the aforesaid Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile. They are:-
(1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or
(2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or
(3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail in Section 12 of the aforesaid Act. Though the prayer for bail of the revisionist has been opposed by learned counsel for the opposite parties, but could not demonstrate from the record that there existed any of the grounds on which bail application of a juvenile could be rejected keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Considering the above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are erroneous and cannot be sustained. The aforesaid impugned orders dated 20.11.2023 and 30.08.2023 are hereby set aside.
Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed.
Let the revisionist "X" (Juvenile), involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his mother, namely, Smt. Seema who is his natural guardian with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(ii) The revisionist through guardian shall 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;
(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Order Date :- 18.11.2024
Kashifa
