Allahabad High Court
Mr. X (Minor) Thru. His Mother vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 6 March, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14003
Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 89 of 2025
Revisionist :- Mr. X (Minor) Thru. His Mother
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd.Mateen,Shamsher Yadav Jagrana,Vikas Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for hte State-responden.t
None appears for the complainant.
The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the judgment and order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda in Crime No.668/2024, under Sections 70(2), 352 BNS and Section 5G/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and order dated 24.12.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Gonda in Appeal No.77 of 2024.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that age of the revisionist at the time of occurrence is 13 years 11 months and 22 days. The victim was 17 years old as per the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the statement of her mother. According to ossification test, she was found 16-17 years however, as per the school record she has been shown to be 14 years. In the statement during investigation it is stated that the alleged mobile was used by the children of the accused however, no mobile has been recovered although the incident is said to have occurred in a car brought by the accused however, no investigation regarding that car has been done, the car has not been recovered although it is alleged in the statement of the victim under Section 180 and 183 BNSS that car collided with an electric pole and it was abundant still it has not been recovered this falsifies the entire prosecution story. It is submitted thatrevisionist has no criminal history.
It is next submitted that the District Probation officer,Gonda in his report has stated that during his inquiry he has found that the conduct of therevisionist was normal in the village. He has no criminal history. The physical condition has been found normal. No social or economic adversity has been found and the mental state has been found better than normal.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the present criminal revision. It is submitted, the incident reported is true and it is wrong to say that the allegations made against therevisionist 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 therevisionist 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 therevisionist to grant of bail, at this stage. Therevisionist undertakes to address the statutory concerns expressed in section 12 of the Act, as to the safety and well being of therevisionist, 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, statement of the victim, no recovery of alleged mobile/car by the investigating agency, 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 16.12.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda in Crime No.668/2024, under Sections 70(2), 352 BNS and Section 5G/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and order dated 24.12.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Gonda in Appeal No.77 of 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,Gonda 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 :- 6.3.2025
Saurabh Yadav/-
