Allahabad High Court
Goyal Singh @ Anshu Bahadur vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 September, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?AFR Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 71 of 2022 Revisionist :-Minor 'X' Through His Natural Guardian Father 'Y" Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhilesh Bharti,Narendra Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. It appears that name of the revisionist-juvenile has been disclosed in the memo of revision. This fault from the side of revisionist escaped detection by the Registry. The concerned Officer of the Registry is directed to delete the name of the revisionist-minor from the title of the revision as fed and shown in the data on official website and represent him as "Minor 'X' Through His Natural Guardian Father 'Y".
2. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Avanish Kumar holding brief of Sri Narendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2-the informant and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State.
3. This criminal revision has been filed with the prayer to set aside the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj dated 13.09.2021 and the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POSCO Act, Allahabad passed on 30.10.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2021 affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj and declining bail to the juvenile in a matter arising out of Case Crime No. 134 of 2021 under Sections 376, 506 IPC, 3/4 of POSCO Act and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Shankargarh, District-Prayagraj with further prayer to admit him to bail.
4. The submissions of the revisionist is that the juvenile who was found to be of the age of 15 years 8 months and 14 days on the date of the incident, by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 26.08.2021, is lodged in an observation home since 01.05.2021 and that the impugned orders have been passed in complete disregard of the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act; there has been no material before the Juvenile Justice Board or the appellate Court to arrive at a conclusion that in case the juvenile is released on bail, he shall be exposed to physical, moral and psychological danger and that his release shall not be in the best interest of the juvenile himself; the impugned orders being arbitrary and contrary to law and are liable to be set aside.
5. As per the version of the FIR, a six years old daughter of the informant had gone to gather unripe mangoes from the orchard belonging to Sarjo Master where the juvenile was also present. He dragged the victim to an abandoned hut, sexually assaulted her and also threatened and instructed her not to disclose the incident to anybody else. The victim, however, disclosed the whole matter to her mother, thereafter, the FIR Case Crime No. 0134 of 2021 under Sections 376, 506 IPC, 3/4 of POCSO Act and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act was registered same day at 23.47 hours i.e., within seven hours of the occurrence which took place on 30.04.2021 at 17.30 hours in the evening.
6. As per the statement of the victim under Section 161, when she went to gather some mangoes from the place of occurrence i.e., mango orchard, the juvenile taking advantage of the absence of any other in the vicinity, forcibly dragged her to an abandoned hut and ravished her after removing her clothes. After the act, he made her wear the clothes again and sent her back to her house after threatening her and instructing her not to disclose anything to anybody else. As per the medical examination report, she was bleeding from her private parts and there was also rapture of hymen and tear in labia minora and fourchette introitus. She was also bleeding from her vagina and perineum. As per the report of the C.M.O., she was merely 8 years old at the time of the occurrence.
7. First and foremost contention from the side of revisionist is that gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration for refusing bail to the juvenile as has been held by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 2732 of 2010 (Amit Kumar vs. State of U.P.) decided on 14.09.2010, Criminal Revision No. 1266 of 2020 (Kanchan Sonkar vs. State of U.P.) decided on 01.12.2020, Criminal Revision No. 1852 of 2015 (Amit vs. State of U.P.) decided on 16.03.2016 and held by the Apex Court in Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006 Cri.L.J. 1373.
8. In Criminal Revision No. 1852 of 2015 (Amit vs. State of U.P.) decided on 16.03.2016, this Court referred to the earlier judgement in Vijendra Kumar Mali vs. State of U.P., 2003 (1) J.I.C. 103, wherein it was observed that in a number of judgements, it has been categorically held that bail to the juvenile can only be refused if one of the grounds as provided in Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, existed; so far as the ground of gravity is concerned, it was not covered under the relevant provisions; if the bail application of the juvenile was to be considered under the provisions of Cr.P.C., there would have been absolutely no necessity for the enactment of the aforesaid Act. The Section 12 of the Act contained a non-obstante clause, which indicated that the general provisions of Cr.P.C. shall not apply. Therefore, the gravity or seriousness of the offence should not be taken as an obstacle or hindrance to refuse the bail to delinquent juvenile.
9. It is contended that since there existed no material to justify rejection of bail on the grounds envisaged in Section 12 of the Act; the 'child in conflict with law', who has been in custody for quite some time deserved to be released on bail otherwise, the purpose of provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act shall stand defeated; that care of the juvenile in a child care institution cannot be preferred over his care in his biological family.
10. In Om Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan and another; (2012) 5 SCC 201, the Apex Court observed that the Juvenile Justice Act was enacted with a laudable object of providing a separate forum or a special court for holding trial of juvenile as it was felt that child 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. It was further observed that when an accused is involved in grave and serious offence which he committed in a well planned manner reflecting his maturity of mind the court ought to be more careful. It may be noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court gave aforesaid view in the background of facts that age of the juvenile determined by the courts below was not free from doubts. In those peculiar circumstances, the Apex Court commanded attention of the Courts that where accused commited grave and heinous offence and thereafter he attempted to take statutory shelter under the guise of being a minor, a casual or cavalier approach while recording his age, is not acceptable. It was also observed that the shelter of the principle of benevolent legislation of the Juvenile Justice Act is meant for minors, who are innocent law breakers.
11. All said and done, the nature of crime where its grave and heinous cannot be simply passed over. In this context, I choose to mention the observations made by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Mangesh Rajbhar vs. State of U.P. and Another; 2018 (2) ACR 1941, which reads as under:-
"13. No doubt, the Juvenile Justice Act is a beneficial legislation intended for reform of the juvenile/child in conflict with the law, but the law also demands that justice should be done not only to the accused, but also to the accuser."
25. It is not that this aspect of the gravity of the offence has been considered irrelevant to the issue of grant or refusal of bail to a minor in the past and before the present Act of 2015 came into force. In a decision of this Court under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 where the interest of the society were placed seemingly not on a level of playing field with the juvenile, this Court in construing the provisions of Section 12 in that Act that were pari materia to Section 12 of the Act in the matter of grant of bail to a minor held in the case of Monu @ Moni @ Rahul @ Rohit v. State of U.P., 2011 (74) ACC 353 in paragraph Nos. 14 and 15 of the report as under:
"14. Aforesaid section no where ordains that bail to a juvenile is a must in all cases as it can be denied for the reasons"......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."
15. In the light of above statutory provision bail prayer of the juvenile revisionist has to be considered on the surrounding facts and circumstances. Merely by declaration of being a juvenile does not entitle a juvenile in conflict with law to be released on bail as a matter of right. The Act has a solemn purpose to achieve betterment of juvenile offenders but it is not a shelter home for those juvenile offenders who have got criminal proclivities and a criminal psychology. It has a reformative approach but does not completely shun retributive theory. Legislature has preserved larger interest of society even in cases of bail to a juvenile. The Act seeks to achieve moral physical and psychological betterment of juvenile offender and therefore if, it is found that the ends of justice will be defeated or that goal desired by the legislature can be achieved by detaining a juvenile offender in a juvenile home, bail can be denied to him. This is perceptible from phraseology of section 12 itself. Legislature in its wisdom has therefore carved out exceptions to the rule of bail to a juvenile."
12. Ordinarily, the merits of the matter may not be unduly important where the Courts are inclined to give benefit of bail as envisaged in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. This is not to say that once a person is found a juvenile, it is mandatory to grant him bail and that merits of matter shall have no relevance. In my view, the nature of the crime and factors connected thereto never went into oblivion and this particular aspect have been usefully illuminated by the Courts time and again. In fact nature of the offence and merits of the matter may assume ample significance when the Court has to form an opinion about the ends of justice. It may be noted that the phrase 'ends of justice', cannot exist in a vacuum. Unarguably and undeniably, the Courts are under obligation to address the concerns of both the sides and strike a delicate balance between competing and often conflicting demands of justice of the two sides. When viewing the matters of bail from this particular angle of deciphering the ends of justice not only the nature of crime, but also the manner of commission thereof, methodology applied, the mental state, the extent of involvement, the evidence available shall be the factors to reckon with. To my mind, from this particular point of view, no artificial line can be drawn to differentiate cases of juvenile above 16 years from those who are found just below 16, in ordinary circumstances. Incidentally, the accused in this case was found marginally below 16.
13. Following facts are important in the present matter before me:-
Firstly, the nature of the crime that a little innocent girl of tender age had gone to an orchard not apprehending something untoward may happen to her. Obviously, she was not in a position to physically resist a sufficiently grown up boy, who over-powered her and was made to undergo ordeal of such atrocious crime in a merciless manner. The kind of injuries, she sustained, is enough to shake once conscience. The act in itself indicates the physical and mental maturity of the juvenile and also impels this Court to think about the need for professional counseling with the object of inculcating in him a healthy mind when he grows up into an adult. Therefore, secondly, in my view, he actually needs strict supervision and intervention of the authorities as per the scheme of the Act for his own welfare and well being. Thirdly, the aim and object of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 cannot be achieved if crimes committed by the juveniles are not viewed from the angle of concerns of the society at large as well.
14. I am of the firm view that when considering the bail, the matter is to be assessed from the angle of the (i) principle of best interest, i.e., welfare of the juvenile, (ii) angle of the demands of justice of both the sides and (iii) also the concern of the society at large. He grows into an adult with a healthy mind inside, is in the larger interest of the society. The aim and object of the Act cannot be achieved unless the statutory provisions are not interpreted according to the growing needs of the times. The laws need constant updation of meanings to achieve the goals set in the statement of objects and reasons at the time of enactment.
15. The Juvenile Justice Board did not find it a fit case to release the juvenile on bail, considering the fact that his act must have caused a lot of outrage in the public and local people of the village including the family of the victim and trauma to the victim herself. The Juvenile Justice Board observed that the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act do not mean that once the person is adjudged juvenile, he is entitled to bail, irrespective of all other factors. The Board has taken into consideration the social investigation report submitted by the District Probation Officer. Likewise, the learned appellate Court expressed its opinion that in case the juvenile is released and brought back to his family, he will fall in the same company and environs where he used to be earlier and from where he needs to be protected and rescued, hence, the demands of the best interest of the child required that he should not be released to his family members. Moreover, the learned courts below took into consideration the demands of justice of the victim's family and came to a conclusion that his release shall defeat the ends of justice. I am of the view that the orders of the learned Appellate Court and the Juvenile Justice Board, thus cannot be faulted and the revision is liable to be dismissed as it lacks merits.
16. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
17. The Court/concerned Board is directed to expedite the hearing and conclude the same at the earliest without getting influenced by any of the observations made in this order.
18. Copy of the order be certified to the Court concerned.
Order Date :- 20.9.2022 Vik/-
Note- Copy of the order be sent to concerned Section of the Registry for immediate compliance of direction given in Para-1 of the order.