Allahabad High Court
Vijay Kumar Maurya @Chhotu Maurya ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 February, 2020
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3495 of 2019 Revisionist :- Vijay Kumar Maurya @Chhotu Maurya (Minor) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Vinod Kumar Kushwaha,Ashwani Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rekha P Lal Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the revisionist is taken on record.
Ms. Rekha P. Lal, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 is not present despite repeated calls.
Heard Mr. Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Mr. Vinod Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the revisionist, and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the record of the case.
The present criminal revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (care and protection of children) Act, 2015 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 8.8.2019 passed by Additional Session Judge-Ist, Kaushambi in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2018 (Vijay Kumar Maurya @ Chhotu Maurya Vs. State of U.P. and another), and against order dated 7.6.2019 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Kaushambi both arising out of Case Crime No. 117 of 2018, under sections 363, 366, 376(2)(i) IPC, 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act and 3/4 POCSO Act, police station Saini, district Kaushambi, whereby the learned appellate court as well as learned Juvenile Justice Board refused the prayer of bail of accused-revisionist.
As per the prosecution case, on 6.3.2018 opposite party No. 2 (father of the victim) lodged first information report against the revisionist for the offence under Sections 363 and 366 IPC alleging inter alia that on 2.3.2016 revisionist enticed away his daughter.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that though the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. made an allegation against the applicant, but it is also disclosed that she was having love affair with the revisionist and she was travelled along with revisionist upto Delhi, but did not raise objection of any kind.
Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 2.3.2018 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 21.5.2019 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 16 years 8 months and 20 days on the date of alleged incident. It is next submitted that aforesaid order declaring the revisionist as juvenile has attained finality because the said order has not been further challenged. Averment in this regard has been mentioned in paragraph No. 2 to the supplementary affidavit. It is also not disputed that the revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 4.5.2018 as against the maximum sentence that he may suffer, if found guilty, being of three years.
As to the offence alleged, it is submitted that the revisionist has falsely been implicated in the case with ulterior motive. In this regard, it is further stated that proper investigation was not conducted by the police and thus the revisionist had wrongly been charged with the offence.
It has been submitted that the Social Investigation Report filed in this case also does not raise any specific or strong objection against the revisionist being released and only general and unfounded objections and observation have been made therein. It is further being emphasized that the revisionist does not have any criminal antecedent to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no material on record for believing that the release of revisionist is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, psychological danger, therefore, aforesaid impugned orders are not sustainable and liable to be set aside and revisionist is entitled to be released on bail in view of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015.
Learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the present revision. It has thus been submitted, merely because the revisionist is a juvenile it would not entitle him to bail without going into the gravity of the offence, the nature of the crime. It is also contended that the bail sought for has been rightly refused in view of Section 12(1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015.
Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that while it is true that a juvenile offender is not entitled as of right to be enlarged on bail, irrespective of any other fact or circumstance, however, it also cannot be denied that in view of specific and special legislative intent and intervention, refusal of bail in the case of a juvenile may be made only for specific reasons and circumstance. Otherwise, a general legislative presumption does appear to exist under the scheme of the Act that the welfare of alleged juvenile offender would be better served without he being confined for long duration. Here, the revisionist has remained in juvenile home since 4.5.2018. If the revisionist would be finally held guilty, the maximum punishment to be awarded would not exceed three years.
The Court has to see whether the opinion of the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and orders are in consonance with the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Section 12 of the aforesaid Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile. They are:-
(1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or (2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or (3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail in Section 12 of the aforesaid Act. Though the prayer for bail of the revisionist has been opposed by learned Additional Government Advocate, but 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.
Considering the above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are erroneous and cannot be sustained. The aforesaid impugned orders dated 8.8.2019 and 7.6.2019 are hereby set aside.
Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed.
Let the revisionist Vijay Kumar Maurya @ Chhotu Maurya, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(ii) The revisionist through guardian shall 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;
(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Order Date :- 25.2.2020 Sumaira