HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 66
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 4281 of 2019
Revisionist :- Atul (Minor/Juvenile)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
As per the office report dated 10.1.2020, notice has been served personally upon opposite party no.2 as per the report of C.J.M., Shahjahanpur, yet no one has appeared on his behalf.
This revision is directed against the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Session Judge, Court No.8, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2019 (Atul vs. State of U.P.), dismissing the said appeal arising out of order dated 7.9.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Shahjahanpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) in Bail Application No.53 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 222 of 2019, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Sidhauli, District- Shahjahanpur rejecting the bail application of the revisionist (juvenile).
Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned orders along with entire material on record.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that admittedly the revisionist was declared juvenile in conflict with law and his age was determined to 15 years, 9 months and 17 days. The District Probation Officer after holding an extensive enquiry has recorded in its report dated 7.9.2019 that the revisionist is not associated with any criminal and is not a boy of criminal propensity. Therefore, it cannot be said that after his release he would join the company of known and unknown criminals. Apart from it, he has observed that on account of some dispute the alleged incident has taken place.
Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that there is nothing adverse opinion recorded by the District Probation Officer in its report but his bail application has been rejected by the learned Board as well as by learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal without any convincing basis for giving finding that if the revisionist is released he is likely to come into association with several known and unknown criminals and expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that it is merely ipse dixit of the courts below. It is further submitted that according to the facts on record the revisionist is below the age of majority and is juvenile in conflict with law. It was further submitted that ordinarily such accused is being released on bail unless his case falls under the exceptions that have been provided under the Act. Submission is that the reasoning given in both the impugned orders is very superficial and is not very convincing and is more in the nature of a facewash. Further submission is that the applicant is already in custody since 22.5.2019 and that aforesaid period of detention must have caused reformative effect upon the revisionist-juvenile and he should be given another chance to live a normal life on the supervision of his parents. Counsel has also tried to point out that the impugned orders have not been passed keeping the true spirit of the law that has been laid down with regard to juvenile in conflict with law. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further argued that initially the first information report was lodged under Section 354 I.P.C. and there was absolutely no allegation of assault and later on it is stated that the revisionist had also committed rape upon the prosecutrix who is aged about seven years. However, in the medical report her hymen was found intact and the doctor has opined that there is no sign of use of force.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
I have considered the submissions made by the parties’ counsel and perused the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below along with entire material on record as well as the provisions of the Act.
The provisions of bail to a juvenile is given in Section 12 of the said Act.
The said provision provides that a juvenile accused has to be released on bail unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release 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. There is no any basis or material which may bring the case of the revisionist within the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act.
There is no such substantial material or evidence on record to show that by release on bail, the revisionist would come in association with any known criminal or his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. There is also nothing very substantial on record to show that the release of the revisionist on bail would defeat the ends of justice.
In these circumstances, the Board was not quite justified in rejecting the bail application of the revisionist. Learned Sessions Judge also does not appear to have considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Act in its proper perspective. Thus, both the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be set-aside.
Accordingly, the revision stands allowed. The order dated 7.9.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Shahjahanpur as well as 16.10.2019 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Session Judge, Court No.8, Shahjahanpur are set-aside.
The revisionist- Atul (Minor/Juvenile) son of Sri Durvesh, R/o Village Mahau Dugar, Police Station- Sidhauli, District- Shahjahanpur, involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond through his legal guardian and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Board concerned.
Order Date :- 13.1.2020