Allahabad High Court
Arjun Gupta Thru. Father Ganga Ram Gupta vs State Of U.P. on 15 September, 2022
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 209 of 2021 Revisionist :- Arjun Gupta Thru. Father Ganga Ram Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Suresh Chandra Pandey,Gyanendra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.
The present criminal revision has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 21.12.2020 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 277 of 2020, whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist has been dismissed and for quashing the order dated 03.11.2020 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow whereby the bail application of the revisionist (Juvenile) has been rejected in Case Crime No. 24 of 2020, under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Gomti Nagar Vistar, District Lucknow.
It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the alleged incident said to have taken place on 07.04.2020 at night about 11.00 p.m. whereas the FIR was lodged on 8.4.2020 at about 7.55 p.m. i.e. after a considerable delay without there being any plausible explanation. It is further submitted that revisionist was declared as juvenile in conflict of law on 09.10.2020 but even that both the court below were failed to consider the special provision for bail to juvenile; there are contradiction in the version of the F.I.R. and the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.; the prosecution story does not support the medical report; only gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration for refusing grant of bail to juvenile as has been envisaged in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act and it has been consistent view of various courts; the Board or the lower appellate court has not given any reason or material on record which shows that release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral physical or psychological danger, that his release would defeat the ends of justice; there is no criminal history of the applicant and there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial. The revisionist is in jail since 09.04.2020.
It is next contended that revisionist has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that bail application of the Juvenile has been rejected primarily taking into account the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed without there being any substance. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist was juvenile on the date of incident i.e. on 7.4.2020. It is further argued that once the person has already been declared Juvenile, his bail cannot be rejected on account of gravity of offence committed, if there is no other reason as required for not granting bail.
It is next argued on behalf of revisionist that there exists no ground as specified in Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act for rejection of bail application. He further submits that the orders passed by the appellate court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board do not disclose any concrete reason for concluding that release of revisionist would bring him in association with bad elements of society and his release would expose him morally, physically and psychologically. He further submitted that the report of the District Probation Officer discloses that the revisionist has no criminal tendency nor has any criminal history on record and the said fact has not been considered by the Juvenile Justice Board.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer.
Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the bail. It is not a relevant factor while considering to grant bail to the juvenile. It has been so held by this Court in the cases of Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB); Abdullah @ Abdul Hassan Vs. State of U.P. and Others [2015 (90) ACC 204]; Maroof Vs. State of U.P. and Another [2015 (6) ADJ 203]; Criminal Revision No. 112 of 2015 (Suraj @ Ashok Sukla Thru. Father Mahendra Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 2010(71) ACC 209 decided on 02.07.2015.
It is evident that there is no satisfactory material on record to conclude that the release of juvenile would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that it would defeat the ends of justice or would bring him into association of known criminals. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that revisionist deserves to be released on bail to his parents or legal guardians in absence thereof.
Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed, impugned judgments/orders passed by the courts below are hereby set aside.
Let revisionist Arjun Gupta (minor) be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 24 of 2020, under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S. Gomti Nagar Vistar, District Lucknow, on furnishing a personal bond by either of his parents and in absence by his legal guardians two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned and subject to following conditions:-
(i) That the natural guardian of the revisionist will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the natural guardian will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.
(ii) The revisionist and his natural guardian will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Wednesday of every calendar month commencing with the last Wednesday of September 2022 and if during any calendar month the last Wednesday falls on a holiday, then on the next following working day.
(iii) The District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the revisionist and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board concerned on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.
However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the court below is directed to make every possible endeavour to conclude the trial of the aforesaid case within a period of four months from today without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
Order Date :- 15.9.2022 RavindraKSingh