Allahabad High Court
Delinquent Juvenile A vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 1 May, 2024
Author: Renu Agarwal
Bench: Renu Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:78092 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1622 of 2024 Revisionist :- Delinquent Juvenile A Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Gaurav Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.
1. Present revision has been preferred on behalf of the revision against the order dated 28.02.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.43, Shahjahanpur, in Criminal Juvenile Bail Application No.86 of 2023(delinquent Juvenile A Vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as order dated 02.12.2023 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Shahjahanpur, in Case Crime No.699 of 2019, under sections 363, 366, 376, 504, 506, IPC, and section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Jalalabad, District Shajahanpur.
2. As per the office report dated 30.04.2024 notice has been served upon opposite party nos.3 and 4. Opposite party no.2 has died, hence notice has been served upon him through his legal heirs.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State are present. None appear on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 to 4.
4. It is submitted by counsel for the revisionist that revisionist is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to the FIR there is no allegation of sexual harassment against the revisionist. It is mentioned in the FIR that father of the revisionist Badelalla, who is nephew of the informant enticed away the victim/daughter of informant from her house in her absence. When the informant inquired about her daughter from Badelalla, then Badelalla and his son (the present revisionist) abused her and threatened that he will not returned her daughter. It is submitted that after nine months of the incident the victim returned to her house and her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she stated that in absence of her parents, the revisionist, his mother, father and sister Rajni, forcefully kept her with them. Rajni solemnized her marriage with one Chandrahash son of Tejsingh, Residence of Uari Khera, Police Station Pachdevra, District Hardoi, who is cousin brother of the husband of Rajni. It is further submitted that the statement of victim was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she developed her statement and stated that Badelalla and Guddi sold her to Chandrahash for a sum of Rs.60,000/-. It is stated that there is no peace of evidence to the effect that victim was sole by Badelalla and Guddi. No role has been assigned to the present revisionist and he has been falsely implicated in the present because he is brother of Rajani. As per the report of District Probation Officer there is nothing on record the show that if the revisionist is released on bail he shall come in contact with known criminals, which will danger for his moral, physical or psychological health. Learned Juvenile Justice Board rejected the bail application of the revisionist without considering the provisions of section 12 of Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act and first appellant court also confirmed the order of Juvenile Justice Board without considering the section 12 of Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act in right prospective. Hence, both the orders are liable to be set-aside.
5. Learned AGA for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that revisionist has committed serious crime in assisting the kidnapping of victim, hence the impugned orders does not suffer from any infirmity and does not warrant any interference.
6. I have hear the rival submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
7. From the perusal of record shows that informant was not present at the time of alleged incident and allegation of abusing is levelled against the revisionist. There is no allegation of any crime against the revisionist either in her statement under section 161 or 164 Cr.P.C. by the victim. There is no direct allegation of sexual harassment against the revisionist. There is no allegation against the revisionist in fleeing away the victim with Chandrahash. Victim herself solemnized marriage with Chandrahash on her free will. As per the report of District Probation Officer there is no evidence is on record to show that if the revisionist is released on bail he shall come in context with known criminals, which will danger for his moral, physical or psychological health. Revisionist is student of class-9th and poor person, hence he is working as labour and earned Rs.2000/- per month and contributed the income of his family. Revisionist is languishing in reformatory home since 11.03.2023 having no criminal history. If the revisionist is kept in reformatory home then there may be chances that he will come in contact with known criminals. Per contra, if the revisionist is released on bail then he shall live with her parents in discipline circumstances and shall not come in contact with know criminal. Learned Juvenile Justice Board rejected the bail application of the revisionist without considering the provisions of section 12 of Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act and first appellant court also confirmed the order of Juvenile Justice Board without considering the section 12 of Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act in right prospective. Hence, both the orders are illegal, perverse and are liable to be set-aside.
8. In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The order order dated 28.02.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.43, Shahjahanpur, in Criminal Juvenile Bail Application No.86 of 2023(delinquent Juvenile A Vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as order dated 02.12.2023 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Shahjahanpur, in Case Crime No.699 of 2019, under sections 363, 366, 376, 504, 506, IPC, and section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Jalalabad, District Shajahanpur, are hereby set-aside.
9. The Juvenile Justice Board concerned is directed to release the revisionist on bail upon his father/mother furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board concerned subject to the following conditions:
(i) The natural guardian father/mother 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 father/mother will ensure that the juvenile will not indulge in any criminal activity;
(ii) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall also 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;
(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 concerned on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.
10. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court/J.J.Board shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, uninfluenced by any finding or observation whatsoever in this order.
(Renu Agarwal,J.) Order Date :- 1.5.2024 VKG