X' Juvenile v. State of U.P.) and against order dated
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:167173 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4662 of 2024 Revisionist :- X Juvenile Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Awaneesha Kumar,Mahesh Kumar Sahani,Narendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 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 17.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 1, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 2024 ('X' Juvenile Vs. State of U.P.) and against order dated 30.07.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur in Case Crime No. 332 of 2024, under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, police station Jhangaha, District Gorakhpur, whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer of bail of accused- revisionist. Despite service of notice upon the complainant/ informant, no one has put in appearance on his behalf. Hence, this Court proceeds to hear this matter on merit. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the record.
Legal Reasoning
It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the complainant, who is father of the victim, lodged the first information report on 10.05.2024 for the alleged offence under Section 363 IPC against the revisionist stating inter alia that on 10.05.2024 at about 04:00 A.M., his minor daughter was enticed away by the revisionist. The victim was recovered from the possession of the revisionist on 11.05.2024. Thereafter, her statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded, in which she has stated inter alia that the revisionist was known to her for the last two years and she has love affair with the revisionist. When her parents came to know about their relationship, then they started settling her marriage somewhere else, therefore, she herself left her house. She has also stated that physical relation between them was made with their consent and she expressed her desire to live with the revisionist. Assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 10.05.2024 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 19.07.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 15 years, 10 months and 05 days on the date of alleged incident. It is next submitted that aforesaid order declaring the revisionist as juvenile has attained finality because the same has not been challenged by opposite party No.2, the averment in this regard has been made in para no.10 of the affidavit. It is also not disputed that the revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 11.05.2024. 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 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 Children) Act, 2015.
Legal Reasoning
Advocate Learned Additional vehemently opposed the present revision. It has thus Government 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 Children) Act, 2015. Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I find that it is not in dispute that the revisionist and the victim both are minor. 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 11.05.2024 against the maximum sentence of three years in case of conviction. 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 counsel for but could not the opposite parties/State, 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 17.08.2024 and 30.07.2024 are hereby set aside. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed. Let the revisionist X Juvenile involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his father, namely, Ramaprasad, who is his natural guardian 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 :- 21.10.2024 Shubham