Akash Verma v. State of U.P. and another) and against order dated
Case Details
Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1133 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that while 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 01.12.2021 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 opposite parties, but could not 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 21.02.2022 and 18.01.2022 are hereby set aside. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed. Let the revisionist Mr.X(Minor), involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his mother namely Kalawati 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229- A of the Indian Penal Code. Order Date :- 2.9.2022 Saurabh Digitally signed by SAURABH KUMAR Date: 2022.09.03 14:01:57 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Revisionist :- Mr.X(Minor) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ganesh Shanker Srivastava Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P., Mr. Ganesh Shanker Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record of the case. 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 21.02.2022 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Siddharth Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2022 (Akash Verma vs. State of U.P. and another) and against order dated 18.01.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Siddharth Nagar arising out of case crime no. 128 of 2021, under sections 302, 34, 404 IPC, police station Shohratgarh, District Siddharth Nagar, whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer of bail of accused-revisionist. As per the prosecution case, informant Raj Kumar, brother of the deceased has lodged an F.I.R. on 08.06.2021 with regard to an incident which took place on 07.06.2021 against Budhi Sagar, Ramesh Kumar and Shyam Lal making allegation inter-alia that they have committed murder of his brother by throttling. It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist was neither named in the F.I.R. nor in the first statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the informant. The complicity of the revisionist along with two co-accused namely Mangal Chaudhari and Upendra Tripathi @ Shivam came into light in the second statement under Section 161 of the informant and his father wherein they have stated that, under some confusion, F.I.R. was lodged against Shyam Lal, Ramesh and Budhi Sagar but he received correct information that the deceased has been murdered by Ramesh Tripathi, Akash Verma (present revisionist), Mangal Chaudhari and Upendra Tripathi. Thereafter, revisionist and two co-accused persons namely Mangal Chaudhari and Upendra Tripathi were arrested on 11.06.2021 and the police has shown a recovery of gloves from their possession. It is also pointed out that from the possession of one co-accused Ramesh Tripathi @ Vicky, Vivo mobile phone and one gold chain of the deceased were recovered. Much emphasis has been given by contending that the informant and his father while naming the revisionist do not disclose the source of information received to them. It is also submitted that except the statement of the informant and his father, there is no direct evidence or any corroborative material against the revisionist. It is further submitted that the case of present revisionist is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Ramesh Tripathi @ Vicky. Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 07.06.2021 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 23.11.2021 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 15 years 04 months and 07 days on the date of alleged incident. It is next submitted that the aforesaid order declaring the revisionist as juvenile has attained finality because the same has not been challenged by the opposite party No. 2. It is also not disputed that the revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 01.12.2021. 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 has been submitted that the Social Investigation Report filed in this case also does not raise any specific or strong objection against the revisionist being released and only general and unfounded objections and observation have been made therein. 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 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 Child) Act, 2015. therefore, danger, Learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. Ganesh Shanker Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant vehemently opposed the present revision. It has thus 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 Child) Act, 2015.