Allahabad High Court
X (Juvenile) vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, ... on 9 January, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1688
Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1177 of 2024
Revisionist :- X (Juvenile)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vimal Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the judgment and order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda in Bail Application No.83/2024 and order dated 04.09.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Gonda in Criminal Appeal No.45/2024.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order dated 25.07.2024 & 04.09.2024 have been passed de hors the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
It is next submitted that juvenile is 15 years old. The victim though is nine years old however, the statement of the victim under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. varied. There is no corroborative evidence. In the medical examination of the victim no injury has been found. He submits that revisionist has no criminal history. The D.P.R.O. after conducting the inquiry has given the satisfactory report regarding the major parameters for the juvenile.
Learned A.G.A. has 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. He further submits that in the concluding part of the D.P.RO. report it has been opined by the D.P.R.O. that child is trying to repeat the same offence with other inmates for which he is confined in jail.
Learned counsel for the revisionist while relying on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gurjeet Singh vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in [2018(3) JIC 48 (All)] has submitted that it is the personal opinion of the D.P.R.O.
Peruse the record.
A perusal of the D.P.R.O. report shows that in all 49 parameters there is no adverse report by the D.P.R.O. against the juvenile however, at point No.33 & 34 of the report satisfactory conduct of the juvenile has been reported by the D.P.R.O. therefore, without any substance and basis while concluding the inquiry adverse report has been given by the D.P.R.O. The aforesaid adverse report given by the D.P.R.O. can be said to be only his personal opinion.
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 the fact that there is lack of corroborative evidence in support of the prosecution case, otherwise satisfactory report of the D.P.R.O. in favour of the juvenile, he has no criminal history and the undertaking given on behalf of the juvenile before this Court that he will be kept under family control and the period of incarceration gone into by the juvenile 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 25.07.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda in Bail Application No.83/2024 and order dated 04.09.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Gonda in Criminal Appeal No.45/2024, 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 :- 9.1.2025
Saurabh Yadav/-
