Allahabad High Court
Rajendra Kumar Sharma @ Ankit ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 July, 2021
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 748 of 2021 Revisionist :- Rajendra Kumar Sharma @ Ankit Vishwakarma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Case is take up through video conferencing.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
The instant revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 05.01.2021, passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2020 (Rajendra Kumar Sharma @ Ankit Vishwakarma vs. State of U.P.) and also to set aside the order dated 02.12.2020, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur in Case Crime No. 20 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S. Khaga, District Fatehpur.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that first information report of this case was lodged making false and baseless allegations. The revisionist was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur vide order dated 23.11.2019 and thereafter that bail application moved on behalf of juvenile/applicant was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 02.12.2020. Learned counsel submitted that against the order dated 02.12.2020, revisionist filed criminal appeal no. 46 of 2020 but that appeal has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 05.01.2021. Learned counsel submitted that at the time of incident applicant was aged merely 16 and a half years and that as per first information report, age of victim girl has been mentioned 17 years. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., victim girl has stated her age as 19 years. Learned counsel further submitted that in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., victim girl has clearly stated that she has married with applicant and she wanted to live with him. Similarly, at the time of her medical examination also she has not made any allegation against the applicant. Learned counsel submitted that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., victim has developed a concocted story under pressure of her family members and made allegations of rape. It has been submitted that in view of above stated facts and circumstances, juvenile/applicant is entitled to be released on bail and both the impugned orders are against facts and law and thus, liable to be quashed. It has been submitted that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act prayer for bail of a juvenile can be rejected only if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile 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'. It has been submitted that in this case no such grounds are available on record to deny bail to the revisionist.
It has been submitted that gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration for refusing grant of bail to the juvenile as has been held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB) and it has been a consistent view of various courts. It has been submitted that there exist no material to justify rejection of bail on the grounds envisaged by Section 12 of the Act.
Learned AGA has opposed prayer for bail and argued that as per School Leaving certificate, the date of birth of victim girl has been shown 04.09.2004 and thus, she is still minor but he could not demonstrate from the record that there existed any of the grounds on which bail application of a juvenile could be rejected keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
From Perusal of the Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, it is clear that a juvenile is entitled to bail, notwithstanding the gravity of the crime and the bail application can be refused only when there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile 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. This Court in a number of judgements has categorically held that bail to juvenile can only be refused, if any of the above-stated ground existed. In the present case, learned lower appellate court has not stated any material that on what basis this conclusion has been drawn that in case, revisionist is released on bail, his release may bring him into association with known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and that his release would defeat the ends of justice. There is no material on record in support of such satisfaction, arrived by the court below. It has been stated that the revisionist is in judicial custody since 07.03.2019.
In view of the aforesaid, the revisionist deserves bail. Revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.01.2021, passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Fatehpur and the order dated 02.12.2020, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur are, hereby, set aside and application for bail/custody moved on behalf of juvenile is allowed..
Let the revisionist Rajendra Kumar Sharma @ Ankit Vishwakarma involved in Case Crime No. 20 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S. Khaga, District Fatehpur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond by his guardian with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(a) The revisionist will not tamper with the evidence.
(b) He shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall cooperate with the trial.
(c) He shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.
In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the revisionist.
Order Date :- 13.7.2021 A. Tripathi