HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 69
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 3102 of 2019
Revisionist :- Shoyab
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Dhirendra Mohan Chaudhary
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
This revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and SectionProtection of Children) Act, 2015, has been preferred with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 4.7.2019 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act) VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 2524 of 2018,(SectionShoyab v. State of U.P. and another) under Sectionsection 377 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Loni, District- Ghaziabad against the order dated 20.4.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad in Case No. 4 of 2019 in Case Crime No. 2524 of 2018 (State v. Shoyab) under Sectionsection 377 IPC and section5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Loni, District- Ghaziabad and the rejection of the bail application by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad dated 7.5.2019 in Case No. 4 of 2019, in Case Crime No. 2524 of 2018 (State v. Shoyab) under Sectionsection 377 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 , Police Station- Lone, whereby the bail prayer of the revisionist has been dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned orders along with entire material on record.
Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the opinion recorded by the District Probation Officer, in its report that in the event the revisionist (juvenile in conflict with law) is released on bail, there is possibility of his going in the company of known and unknown criminals. However, neither Juvenile Justice Board nor appellate court has detailed the basis to arrive at such a conclusion. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that it is merely ipse dexit of Probation Officer unsupported by any evidence. 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. 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 and the aforesaid period of detention must have caused reformative effect upon the revisionists-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 contended that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further contended that the revisionist has been declared juvenile 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 AGA 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 revisionists. 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 7.5.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad, as well as 4.7.2019, passed by Special Judge(POCSO Act) VIII Addl. District Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Ghaziabad, in the aforesaid case, are set-aside.
The revisionist, Shoyab, son of Mobin, resident of H.No.35 Kanchan Park, Police Station- Loni, District- Ghaziabad involved in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 2524 of 2018 (State v. Shoyab) under Sectionsection 377 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station- Loni 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 Court/Board concerned.
Order Date :- 13.8.2019