Allahabad High Court
Qasim vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 December, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 2511
Author: Rajul Bhargava
Bench: Rajul Bhargava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2990 of 2019 Revisionist :- Qasim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd Imran Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar Kesarwani Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.
This revision is directed against the order dated 15.5.2019 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge, Hapur in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2018 (Qasim vs. State of U.P.), dismissing the said appeal arising out of order dated 29.10.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Hapur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in Case No. 15 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.73 of 2018, under Sections 376-D I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Hafizpur, District- Hapur rejecting the bail application of the revisionist (juvenile).
Heard Sri Mohd Imran Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Pramod Kumar Kesarwani, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned orders along with entire material on record.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that admittedly the revisionist was declared juvenile in conflict with law and his age was determined to be less than 15 years. It has been contended that according to prosecution it is alleged that the applicant and co-accused had forcibly raped the victim aged about 12 years, however, in the medical report hymen has been found intact and no external and internal injury has been noted which prima facie falsifies the prosecution version of gang-rape.
Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that there is nothing adverse opinion recorded by the District Probation Officer in its report 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 counsel for the revisionist states that it is merely ipse dixit of the courts below. 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. It was further submitted that ordinarily such accused is being released on bail unless his case falls under the exceptions that have been provided under the Act. 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 since 9.7.2018 and that aforesaid period of detention must have caused reformative effect upon the revisionist-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 A.G.A. 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 revisionist. 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 29.10.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Hapur as well as 15.5.2019 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge, Hapur are set-aside.
The revisionist- Qasim son of Late Jameel, R/o Village Badauda Sihani, Police Station Hafizpur, District Hapur, involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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 Board concerned.
Order Date :- 12.12.2019 Vikas