Allahabad High Court
Juvenile X vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 November, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:181654
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4996 of 2024
Revisionist :- Juvenile X
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Atul Tej Kulshrestha,Narendra Kumar,Rahul Kumar,Ravindra Kumar Srivastava,Vinay Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Alka Srivastava,Brijesh Kumar Yadava,G.A.,Mohammad Yunus Khan
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1-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 18.07.2024 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Juvenile Court Baghpat in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2024 and against order dated 19.06.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Baghpat in Case Crime No. 56 of 2024, under Sections 376, 506, 452 I.P.C., Police Station Badaut, District Baghpat whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer of bail of accused-revisionist.
2-Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P., learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.
3-Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 19.01.2024 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 19.06.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board, Baghpat treating the age of revisionist as 17 years, 05 months and 30 days on the date of alleged incident. It is next submitted that aforesaid order declaring the revisionist as juvenile has attained finality, which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 27.03.2024.
4-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 next submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is cousin brother-in-law of the victim, therefore, he has been falsely implicated in this case because on account of acrimonious relation of the victim with her husband, she was willing to live separately along with her share. It is further submitted that since there was no property division, revisionist's family and victim's husband family were living jointly, therefore, it was not possible to give any share to the victim. Much emphasis has been given by contending that the victim has not come with clean hand and she has made false allegations against the revisionist. Even concealing the fact that the revisionist is her cousin brother-in-law and there is a matrimonial dispute between the victim and her husband. It is also submitted that the medical examination report of the victim does not support the prosecution case.
5-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.
6-Learned Additional Government Advocate 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, whereas, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not oppose the prayer for bail of the revisionist by contending that the matrimonial dispute between the victim and her husband has been settled.
7-Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is no adverse report of District Probation Officer, Baghpat against the revisionist. This Court also finds that it is not disputed that the revisionist is cousin brother-in-law of the victim but she, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has shown the revisionist as her neighbour, hence, possibility of giving false statement by the victim cannot be ruled out.
8-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:-
(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.
9-Considering the facts of the case as noted above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are erroneous and cannot be sustained. The aforesaid impugned orders dated 19.06.2024 and 18.07.2024, whereby the prayer for bail of the revisionist was refused, are hereby set aside.
10-Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed.
11-Let the revisionist Juvenile 'X' involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his father, namely, Krishna 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 :- 21.11.2024
Saurabh
