Allahabad High Court
Suraj @ Dhruv Thru. Next Friend Jag ... vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 27 August, 2021
Author: Saroj Yadav
Bench: Saroj Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No.25. Reserved. Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 682 of 2020 Revisionist :- Suraj @ Dhruv Through Next Friend Jag Prasad @ Guddu Mahara Opposite Party :-i).State Of U.P. ii).Shri Anjani Kumar Gupta. Counsel for Revisionist :- Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra, Shri Vinay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the juvenile Suraj @ Dhruv through his father Jag Prasad, under Section 102 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short 'Act of 2015') against judgement and order dated 20.11.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad in Criminal Appeal (J) No.24 of 2020 and also against the order dated 2.9.2020 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad (in short 'J.J. Board') arising out of Case Crime No.304 of 2019, under Sections 411, 460, 380 of The Indian Penal Code ( in short 'I.P.C.'), Police Station Raunahi, District Faizabad 'Suraj @ Dhruv through his mother Madhuri Vs. State of U.P.' whereby the bail application of the juvenile was rejected by the learned J.J.Board and the appellate court dismissed the appeal preferred.
2. The brief factual matrix necessary for disposal of this criminal revision is as under :-
3. On 6.7.2019, a First Information Report ( in short 'F.I.R.') was registered at Case Crime No.0304 of 2019, on the basis of a written report moved by Anjani Kumar Gupta. It was written in the report that on the night of the incident, the complainant was sleeping on the roof alongwith his family. His mother Janki Devi slept on the ground floor in the shop. In the night at about 1.00 a.m., two miscreants came and asked for key of the box from his mother. His mother told them that the key was with Pintoo. Then they started beating her. His mother asked them to take whatever they want but don't beat her. On it, the miscreants tied the hands of his mother with wire and closed the mouth with a tape. They also cut the throat of his mother with a blade to kill her and also tied the throat of his mother with wire of mobile charger. His mother fainted and miscreants thinking that she died, ran away. After some time, the younger daughter-in-law of the complainant came down and saw the mother and woke up everyone. When his mother came into senses in the hospital, she told that both the miscreants were Dhruv and Ravi, son of Guddu Mahara and they also took away her gold chain, gold tops and Rs.10,000/-.
4. Investigation started. The revisionist was taken into custody. He claimed juvenility and was so declared by the learned J.J.Board vide order dated 10.6.2020. He, on the date of the incident, was found nine years, six months and 21 days. Thereafter, the revisionist moved bail application before the learned J.J.Board, that was rejected vide order dated 2.9.2020. Against the order of learned J.J.Board, the revisionist preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the Act of 2015 but that too was rejected vide order dated 20.11.2020.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgement of the learned appellate court and the order of the learned J.J.Board, the juvenile has preferred this criminal revision under Section 102 of the Act of 2015.
6. Heard Shri Anubhav Awasthi, Advocate holding brief of Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the respondent State.
None appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2 despite of service of notice.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist was a minor on the date of the incident. He was so declared by the learned J.J.Board. His age was found 9 years, six months and 21 days on the date of the incident. Learned J.J.Board as well as the learned appellate court have not applied their legal minds while passing the impugned judgement and order. Both the learned courts below have failed to appreciate the legal position that a juvenile can be denied bail only in the exceptional cases provided under Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015.
Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that there is nothing adverse in the report of the District Probation Officer, Faizabad (in short 'D.P.O.'). So the orders of the learned J.J.Board and learned appellate court should be set aside and the revisionist should be released on bail.
8. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and argued that the revisionist alongwith his brother had committed a heinous crime. He alongwith his brother co accused barged into the house of the complainant and tied the hands and cut the throat of his mother (the victim) and snatched the gold-jewellery and also the money. Learned J.J.Board and the learned appellate court have rightly rejected the bail prayer of the revisionist, hence this revision should be dismissed.
9. Considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
10. Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015, in this regard reads as under :-
"12. (1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non- bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person:
Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person in to association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision."
11. Legal position is that, for a juvenile in conflict with law bail is the Rule. The bail to a juvenile can be denied exceptionally.
A juvenile can be denied bail only if there appears reasonable ground for believing; (i) that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into association with any known criminal ; or,
(ii). expose the juvenile to moral, physical or psychological danger ; or,
(iii). release of the juvenile would defeat the ends of justice.
12. Juveniles are treated differently in legal system because they lack cognitive capacities of an adult. They are unable to foresee the consequences of their acts like an adult and generally unable to plan for future.
13. It is discernible from the record that the revisionist was declared juvenile by the learned J.J.Board vide order dated 10.6.2020. His age, on the date of incident, was found 9 years, six months and 21 days.
14. Perusal of the D.P.O. report shows that there is nothing adverse to the juvenile as to lead to the conclusion that juvenile if released on bail, would come into association of known criminals or the ends of justice stand defeated. There is no criminal antecedents of the juvenile. The revisionist is in detention since 7.7.2019.
15. Considering the above facts and circumstances and the settled position of law, the order of learned J.J. Board and the judgment of the learned appellate court are not sustainable. Therefore, it appears just to set aside the order passed by the learned J.J. Board and the judgement passed in appeal.
16. The revision is allowed.
17. Impugned judgement and order dated 20.11.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad in Criminal Appeal (J) No.24 of 2020 and he order dated 2.9.2020 passed by learned J.J. Board arising out of Case Crime No.304 of 2019, under Sections 411, 460, 380 I.P.C., Police Station Raunahi, District Faizabad are hereby set aside.
18. The juvenile (Suraj @ Dhruv) shall be released on bail in Case Crime No.304 of 2019, under Sections 411, 460, 380 I.P.C., Police Station Raunahi, District Faizabad and be given in custody of his father, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Magistrate of J.J. Board, Faizabad/Ayodhya subject to following conditions :-
(i). That Jag Prasad ( Guddu Mahara ), father of the juvenile shall furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail, the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known criminal or be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that father will ensure that the juvenile do not repeat the offence.
(ii).The father will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that he will encourage the juvenile to pursue his studies.
(iii). The revisionist Suraj @ Dhruv and his father Jag Prasad @ Guddu Mahara will report to the D.P.O on the first Monday of every month with effect from the firstMonday of the month next after release from custody, and if during any calendar month, the first Monday falls on a holiday then on the following working day.
(iv).The D.P.O. will keep strict vigil on the activities of the revisionist and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the learned J.J.Board, Faizabad/ Ayodhya on such periodical basis as the J.J. Board determines.
.
(Saroj Yadav,J) Order Date :- 27.8.2021/Shukla