Allahabad High Court
X Minor 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:179865
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1517 of 2024
Revisionist :- X Minor
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ganesh Shanker Srivastava,Mohammad Zafar Yab Khan,Shahroze Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vipin Kumar Dwivedi
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 01.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Siddharth Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2024, and against order dated 19.01.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Siddharth Nagar in Misc. Case No. 87 of 2022 (State Vs. Archana) arising out of Case Crime No. 317 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C., police station Bansi, district Siddharth Nagar, 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 and 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 21.10.2023 and she has been declared juvenile vide order dated 19.01.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 13 years, 9 months and 2 days on the date of alleged incident. It is next submitted that aforesaid order declaring the revisionist as juvenile has attained finality and the said fact has not been disputed by the counsel for opposite party No. 2. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 24.10.2023.
As to the offence alleged, it is submitted that the revisionist has falsely been implicated in the 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. It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that a First Information Report dated 24.10.2023 was lodged by uncle of the revisionist on the basis of alleged disclosure made by the revisionist, against Vikas Yadav alias Chhotu, Lavkush, Smt. Malti Devi (mother of Vikas Yadav) and the revisionist (niece of the informant) alleging inter alia that on 21.10.2023 a missing report of Koyali Devi (mother of the informant) was lodged. While searching, it was revealed that a dead body of a woman has been buried besides Fajihatwa Nala. Later on, said dead body was identified as the body of his mother. Subsequently, it was revealed that co-accused Vikas Yadav alias Chhotu along with his friend Lavkush had come to the house of the revisionist in the night to meet her, but they were seen by the deceased, therefore, accused persons in collusion with each other committed her murder. Much emphasis has been given by contending that there is no independent eye-witness of the incident. F.I.R. has been lodged on the narration of the incident by the revisionist who is accused in the present case. It is also submitted that even during investigation, no credible evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer with regard to involvement of the revisionist in the present case. It is next submitted that co-accued Malti Devi and Lavkush have been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 06.02.2024 and 25.09.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 56437 of 2023 and 3199 of 2024 respectively.
It is further being emphasized that the revisionist does not have any criminal antecedent to her credit. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no material on record for believing that the release of revisionist is likely to bring her into association with any known criminal or expose her to moral, psychological danger, therefore, aforesaid impugned judgement and 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 her 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.
Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is no direct evidence against the revisionist. Other co-accused persons, namely, Malti Devi and Lavkush have been granted bail as noted above. 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 she being confined for long duration. Here, the revisionist has remained in juvenile home since 24.10.2023 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 her into association with any known criminal, or
(2) expose her to moral, physical or psychological danger, or
(3) that her 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 Judgment and orders dated01.03.2024 and19.01.2024 are hereby set aside.
Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed.
Let the revisionist X (Minor), involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of her father, namely, Bali Ram, who is her 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 she 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Order Date :- 18.11.2024
Kashifa
