Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Zaid Thru. Father Abdul Hafeez vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 23 January, 2020
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 6 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1054 of 2018 Revisionist :- Mohd. Zaid Thru. Father Abdul Hafeez Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. Shri Suresh Kumar Tewari for the State-respondent.
The instant revision has been preferred under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the order dated 23.08.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I/Special Judge, (Human Rights and POCSO Act), Pratapgarh in criminal appeal No.72 of 2018 whereby the bail application moved by the revisionist in case Crime No.628 of 2017, under Sections 307, 452, 323, 504, 506, 147, 148 IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act, relating to Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh has been rejected.
The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the age of the revisionist is 17 years one month and twenty days on the date of the alleged occurrence. It has further been submitted that the allegations against the revisionist are based on the confessional statement of co-accused, namely, Saifulrahman @ Neta. It has been submitted that merely on the basis of the aforesaid statement, seven cases have been imposed against the revisionist.
It has also been submitted that in the FIR no role has been assigned and even no identification parade has been done and in absence thereof the revisionist has been falsely implicated.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has also drawn the attention of the Court to the report submitted by the DPRO wherein it has been brought on record that as far as the emotional, physical and intellectual condition of the revisionist is concerned, the same was found to be normal. The opinion of the public, neighbours is also not which may dis-entitle the revisionist from being enlarged on bail. The report only indicates that on account of lack of parental guidance, the revisionist has a tendency of being in bad company. However, the revisionist does not have any criminal history apart from the seven cases which have been imposed against the revisionist on the basis of the statement of Saifulrahman @ Neta and that too when the value of such statement is doubtful at this stage.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that there is no material on record by which it could be inferred that in case if the revisionist is enlarged on bail, he would be subjected to the company and association of known criminal or that he would be subjected to moral and psychological danger and there is neither any material to indicate that in case if the revisionist is enlarged on bail, it would result in defeating the ends of justice.
It has also been emphasized that the revisionist is in the juvenile home since 22.09.2017 and more than two years and four months have already lapsed. In the aforesaid circumstances, it has been prayed that the ground upon which the appeal has been rejected by the court below is not sustainable and as such the revision deserves to be allowed.
Shri Tewari learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision and has submitted that as per DPRO report, there is a clear reference that the social behaviour of the revisionist is not upto the mark and that on account of lack of guidance and parental control. In case if the revisionist is enlarged on bail, he may be subjected to the company of known criminals which shall not be in the beneficial interest of the juvenile/child in conflict with law and accordingly the revision deserves to be rejected.
The Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
The provisions for grant of bail are contained in Section 12(1) of the Act and bail to a juvenile can be refused only if there appears 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.
From the perusal of the material available on record what the Court finds is the fact that apart from the alleged confessional statements which have been brought on record and that too by a co-accused, namely, Saifulrahman @ Neta and the alleged confessional statement of the revisionist himself which at the present stage cannot be made very reliable or be taken note of. There is no other material to indicate that the revisionist has been involved in such activities apart from the fact that all the cases which have been imposed against the revisionist are based on the same statement of Saifulrahman @ Neta and the alleged confessional statement of the revisionist himself.
The Court has also considered the report of the DPRO. However, there is nothing which indicates that in case if the revisionist is enlarged on bail, he would be subjected to the company/association of known criminal. Nor there is any material to suggest that upon him being released from the juvenile home, he would be put to physical, moral or psychological danger and least of all if the revisionist is released how it is going to defeat to ends of justice In cases relating to child in conflict with law, these are the three basic parameters upon which it is to be considered whether the juvenile is to be enlarged on bail or not. This aspect of the matter has been considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gurjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others reported in 2018 (105) Allahabad Crl. Cases 74 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in 2012 (5) SCC page 201 and it has been held as under:-
"3. Juvenile Justice Act was enacted with a laudable object of providing a separate forum or a special court for holding trial of children/juvenile by the juvenile court as it was felt that children become delinquent by force of circumstance and not by choice and hence they need to be treated with care and sensitivity while dealing and trying cases involving criminal offence. But when an accused is alleged to have committed a heinous offence like rape and murder or any other grave offence when he ceased to be a child on attaining the age of 18 years, but seeks protection of the Juvenile Justice Act under the ostensible plea of being a minor, should such an accused be allowed to be tried by a juvenile court or should he be referred to a competent court of criminal jurisdiction where the trial of other adult persons are held.
23. ...... Similarly, if the conduct of an accused or the method and manner of commission of the offence indicates an evil and a well planned design of the accused committing the offence which indicates more towards the matured skill of an accused than that of an innocent child, then in the absence of reliable documentary evidence in support of the age of the accused, medical evidence indicating that the accused was a major cannot be allowed to be ignored taking shelter of the principle of benevolent legislation like the Juvenile Justice Act, subverting the course of justice as statutory protection of the Juvenile Justice Act is meant for minors who are innocent law breakers and not accused of matured mind who uses the plea of minority as a ploy or shield to protect himself from the sentence of the offence committed by him."
This Court is of the opinion that there is no material by which it can be substantiated that the enlargement of the juvenile on bail is either going to result in defeating the ends of justice or the other two parameters which have been considered above, would be violated.
Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the revision deserves to be allowed. The impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge dated 23.08.2018 as well as the order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh are set aside. The revisionist shall be enlarged on bail.
The revisionist Mohd. Zaid is directed to be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime subject to executing a personal bond (as the revisionist is no more a minor) and two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Board concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The revisionist will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail.
(ii) The revisionist will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the court.
(iii) The revisionist will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and sent the revisionist in prison.
(v) The revisionist will report to the police station concerned one a month.
Order Date :- 23.1.2020 ank