Shahil v. State of U.P.), dismissing the said appeal arising out of order dated
Case Details
Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3620 of 2022 Revisionist :- X- Juvenile Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
Legal Reasoning
Notice has been issued to the informant, but none turned up on behalf of informant even in revised call. A compliance report has been filed by learned AGA in the form of compliance affidavit stating therein that notice has been duly served on first informant Vishambhar. This revision is directed against the order dated 17.08.2022 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Session Judge, Court No.13, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2022 (Shahil vs. State of U.P.), dismissing the said appeal arising out of order dated 02.08.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat arising out of Case Crime No. 238 of 2022, under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506, 305 I.P.C. read with Section 7/8 POCSO Act and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Akbarpur, District- Kanpur Dehat rejecting the bail application of the revisionist (juvenile).
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned orders along with entire material on record. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that admittedly the revisionist was declared juvenile in conflict with law and is languishing in jail since 01.04.2022; he is a student of Intermediate; he has been declared juvenile on the date of incident by the Special Judge POCSO Act/ Additional Session Judge, Kanpur Dehat vide order dated 16.7.2022 in which his age has been found below of 18 years on the date of incident. According to prosecution version, informant Vishambhar lodged FIR stating that on 31.3.2022 at around 10:00 am when his daughter aged about 14 years was going to shop of her elder sister, the accused revisionist eve teased her; his daughter made complaint regarding the incident and when the informant approached father of the accused, he was also insulted and abused by caste, however no specific averments have been made in the FIR regarding mode and manner of eve teasing. Learned counsel submits that it is stated in the FIR that the victim has committed suicide on account of feeling insulted by the act of the accused as well as his father; date of birth of the accused is stated to be 20.9.2004 in high school certificate. Learned counsel submits that since the revisionist has been declared juvenile in conflict with law though bail application of the revisionist was rejected by both the court below but there is no mention that after his release he would join the company of known and unknown criminals. Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that there is nothing adverse opinion recorded by the District Probation Officer in its report but his bail application has been rejected by the learned Board as well as by learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal without any convincing basis for giving finding that if the revisionist is released he is likely to come into association with several known and unknown criminals and expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that it is merely ipse dixit of the courts below. It is further submitted that according to the facts on record the revisionist is below the age of majority and is juvenile in conflict with law. It was further submitted that ordinarily such accused is being released on bail unless his case falls under the exceptions that have been provided under the Act. Submission is that the reasoning given in both the impugned orders is very superficial and is not very convincing and is more in the nature of a facewash. Further submission is that aforesaid period of detention must have caused reformative effect upon the revisionist-juvenile and he should be given another chance to live a normal life on the supervision of his parents. Counsel has also tried to point out that the impugned orders have not been passed keeping the true spirit of the law that has been laid down with regard to juvenile in conflict with law. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is no illegality or any infirmity in the order impugned while rejecting the bail application of the revisionist. I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and perused the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below along with entire material on record as well as the provisions of the Act. The provisions of bail to a juvenile is given in Section 12 of the said Act. The said provision provides that a juvenile accused has to be released on bail unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the 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 any basis or material which may bring the case of the revisionist within the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act. There is no such substantial material or evidence on record to show that by release on bail, the revisionist would come in association with any known criminal or his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. There is also nothing very substantial on record to show that the release of the revisionist on bail would defeat the ends of justice. In these circumstances, the Board was not quite justified in rejecting the bail application of the revisionist. Learned Sessions Judge also does not appear to have considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Act in its proper perspective. Thus, both the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, the revision stands allowed. The order dated 2.8.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat as well as 17.08.2022 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Session Judge, Court No.13, Kanpur Dehat are set-aside. The revisionist- X- Juvenile son of Sri Suleman, R/o Village Bigahi, Police Station- Akbarpur, District- Kanpur Dehat, involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond through his legal guardian and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Board concerned. Order Date :- 4.1.2023 Dhirendra/ Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad