HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 6
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 933 of 2018
Revisionist :- Neeraj Kumar (Minor) Thru. Father Ram Jeewan Pal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjay Singh Chauhan,Ajeet Kumar Singh,Pradeep Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. as well as Sri Asit Ali, learned counsel for the complainant.
The revisionist Neeraj Kumar (Minor) Thru. Father Ram Jeewan Pal has moved this Criminal revision seeking bail in respect of his involvement in Case Crime No. 38 of 2018, under Sections 377 I.P.C R/w Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Manpur, District Sitapur.
The instant revision has been preferred under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 being aggrieved against the order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, VIIIth ADJ, Sitapur in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2018 whereby the order dated 08.08.2018 passed by the Justice Juvenile Board, Sitapur has been affirmed by which the bail application of the revisionist was dismissed.
The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist has been held to be 13 years of age. The allegations against the revisionist is that on 25.02.2018 at around 02:00 PM, while the victim a minor boy of 6 years named X, had gone to answer the call of nature at that time the revisionist took the minor boy X in the mango orchard and violated the rights of the minor boy X. At that time, the brother of the complainant namely Virender Kumar reached at the site and on seeing the aforesaid person the revisionist left and ran away.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the DPO report which has been brought on record as annexure no. 4 indicates that there is no adversity nor any adverse circumstance which has been mentioned therein which may indicates that in case if the revisionist is enlarged on bail, he would be subjected to the company or association of known criminals or that he would be subjected to moral, psychological or physical danger. It has also been submitted that there is nothing on record which would indicate that the releasing the revisionist would defeat the ends of justice.
It has further been submitted that in terms of the provision of Juvenile Justice Act, considering the age of the revisionist of 13 years and that he has been in the Special Home since 28.02.2018, coupled with the fact that the maximum where he can be kept in the aforesaid home is 3 years, however, all these facts and circumstances have not been considered by the Justice Juvenile Board at Sitapur nor the same has been considered by the Appellate Court below. The satisfaction recorded by the Lower Appellate Court is not borne out from the record and is a complete misreading of the DPO report which is annexed as Annexure no. 4 and in the aforesaid circumstances, it has been prayed that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the revisionist is liable to be enlarged on bail.
The learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid revision but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
The provision for bail in the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is contained in Section 12 (1). From the perusal of the aforesaid Section and coupled with the fact that the age of the revisionist is 13 years which is not disputed and the report filed by the DPO which indicates that the revisionist is belonging to a family of labours and that he is uneducated, however, as far as his behavior is concerned, it has been noted that there is no special circumstances or any aggravated behavior which has been found. There is no material to indicate that in case if the revisionist is enlarged on bail he would be subjected to the association of known criminals or that he would be subjected to physical, moral or physiological danger neither releasing the revisionist is going to defeat the ends of justice.
In light of the above, this Court is satisfied that the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur as well as the lower appellate court do not consider the DPO report and the parameters for bail as provided under Section 12 (1) of the J.J. Act in the correct perspective and accordingly, this Court sets aside the order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, VIIIth ADJ, Sitapur in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2018 and the order dated 08.08.2018 passed by the Justice Juvenile Board, Sitapur in Criminal Case No. 38 of 2018.
Let the revisionist Neeraj Kumar (Minor) through his natural guardian/father Ram Jeewan Pal be released on bail involved in Case Crime No. 38 of 2018, under Sections 377 I.P.C R/w Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Manpur, District Sitapur that his father furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur subject to the following conditions. be released on bail on giving personal bond by the guardian and with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:
(i) That the natural guardian/father Ram Jeewan Lal will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to go into contact or association with any known criminal or expose to any morale, physical, danger and further that the father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.
(ii) That the father will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juvenile be placed in such an environment where he could be encouraged to his studies and not allowed to waste his time in unproductive and mere recreational persuades.
(iii) The revisionist and his father Ram Jeewan Lal will report to the District Probation Officer once every Monday from the first Monday commencing with the first Monday of March, 2020 and if during any calender month first Monday falls to a holiday then on the following working day.
If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the revisionist is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 6.2.2020