Allahabad High Court
X Juvenile vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 May, 2024
Author: Renu Agarwal
Bench: Renu Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:79914 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 986 of 2024 Revisionist :- X Juvenile Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sandeep Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the entire material brought on record.
3. Instant revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred by the revisionist assailing the order dated 08.02.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Judge POCSO Act, (Exclusive Court), Baghpat in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2025 as well as order dated 09.08.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Baghpat in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 203 of 2022 under Sections 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station-Chhaprauli, District-Baghpat whereby Juvenile Justice Board, Baghpat has rejected the bail application of the revisionist.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the delinquent was juvenile aged about 16 years, 03 months and 06 days at the time of alleged offence. Allegations levelled as per F.I.R. is that revisionist along with other co-accused took the younger brother of the informant near Tugana Vale Road on the pretext that their mobile phone was lost where the younger brother of the informant was killed brutally with a knife. It is also mentioned in the F.I.R. that revisionist lodged a false rape case of his sister against the younger brother of the informant and since then they are on inimical terms. It is submitted that the revisionist has no criminal history apart from the present case and no cogent piece of evidence is found against the revisionist. It is further submitted that knife alleged to have been used in the said incident has not been recovered from the possession of the revisionist and the said knife has been recovered from the place of occurrence on the ground. No adverse remark has been reported by the District Probation Officer vide which it could be said that if the revisionist is released on bail he would be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger or the release of the revisionist would defeat the ends of justice neither there is any evidence to substantiate that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring the revisionist into association with any known criminal. It is further submitted that co-accused, who is also a minor in this case has been released on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.11.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No. 3399 of 2023. It is also submitted that there is no other material on record to show the complicity of the revisionist in committing murder of the deceased except the confessional statement. Revisionist has no criminal history apart from the present case and the conclusion arrived at by both the courts below are unreasonable and without any substance or reasons. The provisions as contained under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act has not been considered in correct perspective by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as appellate court while rejecting the appeal which cannot be said to be in conformity with the law. The delinquent is in Juvenile Care Home since 09.07.2022 and his psychology is being affected adversely, therefore, requested to set aside the order passed by the J.J. Board as well as appellate court and allow the criminal revision.
5. Learned AGA on the other hand has opposed the revision and submitted that allegation of commission of heinous offence under Section 302, 34 I.P.C. has been levelled against the revisionist, hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and does not warrant any interference.
6. I have heard the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the entire materials brought on record. Perusal of the record reveals that the revisionist was aged about 16 years, 03 months and 06 days at the time of alleged offence. Revisionist has no criminal history apart from the present case. Co-accused, who is also a minor in this case has been released on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.11.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No. 3399 of 2023. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be apposite to reproduce Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act:
"12. Bail of juvenile (1)When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) 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 institution or fit person] [ Inserted by Act 33 of 2006, Section 10 (w.e.f. 22.8.2006).] but he shall not be so released if there appear 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.(2)When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer incharge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board.(3)When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order."
7. A perusal of the aforesaid goes to show that the legislative is clearly of the view that juvenile should be given an opportunity for reformation. Considering the fact that there is nothing adverse against the interest of the delinquent in the report submitted by D.P.O. There is nothing on record to substantiate the release of the revisionist would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice neither there is any evidence to substantiate that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring the revisionist into association with any known criminal. The Juvenile Justice Board has not discussed the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act in correct perspective and rejected the bail application of the revisionist. The appellant court also has not discussed the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act in correct perspective and affirmed the order of Juvenile Justice Board, the guardian of the revisionist undertake that if the revisionist is released on bail, he shall take care of the revisionist and shall see to it that the revisionist is not involved in any criminal activities in future.
8. In view of the above the revision is allowed. The impugned orders dated 08.02.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Judge POCSO Act, (Exclusive Court), Baghpat in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2025 as well as order dated 09.08.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Baghpat in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 203 of 2022 under Sections 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station-Chhaprauli, District-Baghpat, are hereby set-aside.
9. The Juvenile Justice Board concerned is directed to release the revisionist on bail upon his father/mother furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board concerned subject to the following conditions:
(i) that the natural guardian father/mother will 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 allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the father/mother will ensure that the juvenile will not indulge in any criminal activity;
(ii) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall also file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court;
10. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court/J.J.Board shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, uninfluenced by any finding or observation whatsoever in this order.
(Renu Agarwal,J.) Order Date :- 3.5.2024 Karan