Allahabad High Court
Juvenile X, Thru. His Father vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 14 February, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9825
Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1188 of 2024
Revisionist :- Juvenile X, Thru. His Father
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar Nishad,Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Pradeep Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vikas Verma
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A and learned counsel for the complainant.
The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the judgment and order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar in Case Crime No.91/2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 504 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act, P.S. Aalapur, District Ambedkar Nagar and order dated 06.09.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.29/2024.
In the prosecution case, it is alleged that daughter of the informant aged about 17 years studying in Class-IX has been enticed away by the revisionist on 22.04.2024.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order dated 06.08.2024 and 06.09.2024 have been passed de hors the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
He has further drawn attention of the Court towards the statement of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., which depict that victim was a consenting party and wants to live with the revisionist. It is next submitted that there is no corroborative medical report in pursuance of the prosecution case. The applicant is juvenile. He was 15 years 6 months and 5 days old at the time of incident, on the other hand, the victim, as per the school record, is 15 years old and as per ossification test is 17-18 years.
He further submits that District Probation Officer while submitting the report has given favourable finding while concluding the inquiry. The parameters of the child have been found normal. There is nothing adverse in the report of the District Probation Officer.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have 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 revisionist are false, and/are 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 the revisionist 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 the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of occurrence; does not appear to be prone to criminal proclivity or criminal psychology, in light of the observations of the D.P.O; 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 revisionist to grant of bail, at this stage. The revisionist undertakes to address the statutory concerns expressed in section 12 of the Act, as to the safety and well being of the revisionist, upon his release.
Having considered the submission made by the parties and taking into consideration the impugned judgment and order and the report of the District Probation Officer 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 dated 06.08.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar in Case Crime No.91/2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 504 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act, P.S. Aalapur, District Ambedkar Nagar and order dated 06.09.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.29/2024, 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 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 :- 14.2.2025
Mohd. Sharif
