High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114124 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6127 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
Appellant :- Juvenile "L" Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Shri Prakash Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Shri Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Chandra Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This Criminal appeal under section 101(5) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is directed against order dated 22.04.2024 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Mirzapur in Bail Application No.891 of 2024, in connection with Case Crime No. 167 of 2023, under Section 377 IPC and Sections 5m/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali City, District- Mirzpuar, by which learned Special Judge rejected the aforesaid bail application. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant sought the attention of Court over the statement recorded by the victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. through which it is apparent that the allegation whatsoever has been put forward through the F.I.R. is not corroborating with the statement recorded by the victim himself. In spite of the same, the bail application preferred before the learned court of Special Judge (POCSO Act), has been dismissed vide order dated 22.04.2024, which arises cause of action in favour of the appellant for preferring the instant appeal. 4. While extending the arguments raised in favour of the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the age of the appellant is 16 years and two months and he is languishing in jail since 21.11.2023. Being the juvenile, the long incarceration will be adversely affect him, if permitted to be carried out and the same will adversely affect the psychology of the appellant also. The applicant is having no criminal history credited in his favour, which is also mentioned while preferring the bail application before the learned court of Special Judge, POCSO Act. 5. Per contra, Sri Chandra Shekhar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer made in the appeal, but did not dispute the fact with regard to age of the appellant as well as regarding no criminal history credited in favour of the appellant. Learned A.G.A. also seconded the same on the basis of instructions received. 6. Considering the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties and the reasoning recorded by passing the order dated 22.04.2024 by learned court of Special Judge, POCSO Act, Mirzapur through which the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant has already been dismissed. After perusal of the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. along with medical examination report appended along with the appeal available at page- 48, it is crystal clear that the statement recorded by the victim himself is not prima-facie attracting the allegation whatsoever has been put forward in the F.I.R. and no pathology report determined the attraction of POCSO Act along with section 377 I.P.C. 7. Considering the age of the appellant it would be highly unjustified to keep a juvenile under custody for more than five years which will be abuse of the process of law and confining a adolescence mind in an unhealthy environment which is waiting for his trial to be concluded well within time. 8. The provisions of bail to a juvenile is given in Section 12(1) of the said Act, which provides as follows:- "12 (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 persons 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." 9. The aforesaid provision provides that a juvenile accused has to be released on bail unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that release 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. There is no basis or material which may bring the case of appellant within the exceptions provided in Section 12(1) of the Act. There is also no material or evidence on record to show that by release on bail, appellant would come in association with any known criminal or his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. There is also nothing on record to show that the release of the appellant on bail would defeat the ends of justice. 10. In these circumstances, the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act was not justified in rejecting the bail application of appellant. Learned Special Judge has also not considered the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act in its proper perspective. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set-aside.
Decision
11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order impugned dated 22.04.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Mirzapur in Bail Application No.891 of 2024 is set-aside. Order on Bail Application 12. The appellant - Juvenile "L" involved in Case Crime No. 167 of 2023, under Section 377 IPC and Sections 5m/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali City, District- Mirzpuar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond through his natural guardian and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Order Date :- 16.7.2024 Saif