Allahabad High Court
Sanjeet Kumar Yadav(Minor) ... vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 4 February, 2020
Author: Anant Kumar
Bench: Anant Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 897 of 2019 Revisionist :- Sanjeet Kumar Yadav(Minor) Thru.Father Nanku Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Sandeep Kumar Tiwari,Dinesh Kumar Shukla,Neeraj Trivedi,Pramod Kumar Tripathi,Ravindra Pratap Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Piyush Shrivastava,Shailendra Kumar Misra Hon'ble Anant Kumar,J.
Notice was issued to the private respondent but no response has been filed.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This criminal revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 has been filed against the impugned order dated 07.05.2019, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow by which the bail plea has been rejected. A further prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 26.06.2019, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-8/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.146 of 2019, relating to Case Crime No.156/2019, under Sections 395, 412, 120B IPC, P.S. Ghazipur, District Lucknow by which the appeal has been rejected.
In this case initially FIR was lodged by the complainant under Sections 395 IPC against one Aslam and 6-7 unknown persons to the effect that occurrence had taken place on 18.02.2019 in the morning at 10.30 A.M. when 6-7 unknown persons entered the house of the complainant. At that time, complainant, father of the complainant and one domestic help was in the house. Complainant was in her room at the upstairs and father was seeing TV in the room at downstairs. Miscreants caught her father and instructed to keep quite and thereafter tied the hands and legs showing country made pistol. Hearing the commotion complainant came down the stairs and saw that the servant was also standing there and when the complainant went there, they caught her as well and tied her hands and legs and gave threat. They called for money. When they could not find money, they called for the key of store. Complainant ultimately gave key. At that time domestic servant was also there. They broke open the door of store room and started opening boxes and Almira by breaking open the doors and decamped with the jewelery, etc. Before this injection was also given to the complainant and her father by the servant. When the miscreants left the house then the complainant and her father opened their hands and legs and police was called on Dial 100. Then it was revealed that miscreants had decamped with Rs.50,000/- cash and jewelery and one licencee revolver. On 25.02.2019 some recovery was made by the police.
As per opinion of District Probation Officer revisionist has got no criminal history. No specific reason has been recorded that his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose his to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is also not concluded by the District Probation Officer that his social declining cannot be ruled out, however, no such instance has been reported.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and has stated that Juvenile Justice Board and learned lower appellate court while rejecting the prayer for bail have not considered the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in right perspective.
The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are contrary to the parameters envisaged under the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act in the matter of grant of bail to a juvenile.
In short, the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is to the effect that there is nothing in the social investigation report or in any other evidence on record that may lead to the conclusion that the case of the revisionist falls within any of the three exceptions to the rule in favour of bail to a juvenile under the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Act.
Section 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, is quoted as under : -
"12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law. - (1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person:
Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision."
Learned counsel for the revisionist has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered in [2018 (105) ACC 74 : Gurjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & another, wherein in paragraph 17 the Hon'ble Court has held as under :-
"17. A perusal of that evidence would show that it cannot be said that the offence, in fact, has been committed so daringly and outwardly that enlarging the revisionist on bail would defeat the ends of justice. In this connection the guidance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan and another may be quoted:
"3. Juvenile Justice Act was enacted with a laudable object of providing a separate forum or a special court for holding trial of children/juvenile by the juvenile court as it was felt that children 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. But when an accused is alleged to have committed a heinous offence like rape and murder or any other grave offence when he ceased to be a child on attaining the age of 18 years, but seeks protection of the Juvenile Justice Act under the ostensible plea of being a minor, should such an accused be allowed to be tried by a juvenile court or should he be referred to a competent court of criminal jurisdiction where the trial of other adult persons are held.
23. ...... Similarly, if the conduct of an accused or the method and manner of commission of the offence indicates an evil and a well planned design of the accused committing the offence which indicates more towards the matured skill of an accused than that of an innocent child, then in the absence of reliable documentary evidence in support of the age of the accused, medical evidence indicating that the accused was a major cannot be allowed to be ignored taking shelter of the principle of benevolent legislation like the Juvenile Justice Act, subverting the course of justice as statutory protection of the Juvenile Justice Act is meant for minors who are innocent law breakers and not accused of matured mind who uses the plea of minority as a ploy or shield to protect himself from the sentence of the offence committed by him."
In view of the above circumstances, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that revisionist is a tender age boy and his living in jail or any reformative home will ruin his career. It is also stated that without any basis or material on record the Juvenile Justice Board has held that in case the appellant is released on bail, there will be adverse effect on his mental and physical status. A similar view has been taken by the lower appellate court. In this case co-accused Sani Singh has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15.11.2019, passed in Bail Application No.6992 of 2019.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, to my view the Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow as well as lower appellate court have not properly considered the material on record and have not taken into account the above mentioned provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015.
Accordingly, the revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 07.05.2019, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow and order dated 26.06.2019, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-8/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.146 of 2019, relating to Case Crime No.156/2019, under Sections 395, 412, 120B IPC, P.S. Ghazipur, District Lucknow are hereby set aside. The bail application of the revisionist is allowed.
Let the revisionist (Sanjeet Kumar Yadav) through his natural guardian/father Nanku Yadav be released on bail in Crime No.156/2019, under Sections 395, 412, 120B IPC, P.S. Ghazipur, District Lucknow on his father furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow, subject to the following conditions:
(i) that the natural guardian/father 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 be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.
(ii) that the father will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juvenile will be placed in a school and encouraged to her studies and not allow to waste his time in unproductive and mere recreational pursuits.
(iii) The revisionist Sanjeet Kumar Yadav and his father Nanku Yadav will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Monday of every month with effect from the first Monday of the month next after release from custody, and, if during any calendar month the first Monday falls on a holiday then on the following working day.
(iv) 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, Barabanki on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board determines.
Order Date :- 4.2.2020/ML