Allowed

Maneesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2022CRLR/3387/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal revision from Juvenile Justice Board and Special Judge dismissing bail application. Court held juvenile under 16 entitled to bail unless specific risks exist, noting victim admitted voluntary marriage and lack of injury.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and order dismissing bail set aside and reversed. Revisionist Maneesh Yadav released on bail subject to mother furnishing bond, undertaking against contact with criminals, and monthl

Maneesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 93

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3387 of 2021 Revisionist :- Maneesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ardhendu Shekhar Sharma,Ram Babu Sharma

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.11.2021 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Chandauli dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2021 (Maneesh Yadav versus State of U.P. and another), filed under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ‘the Act’) and affirming an order of Juvenile Justice Board, Chandauli dated 24.09.2021 refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Case No. 68 of 2021 (State vs. Muneesh Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No. 181 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC read with 3(2)V of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Balua, District Chandauli.

¶7

List has been revised.

¶8

On 21.02.2022 this Court has passed the following order:

¶9

“As per the office report dated 04.02.2022 notice has already been served upon the opposite party No. 2, but till date no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 2 nor any counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has also not filed any counter affidavit.

¶11

Two weeks and no more time is allowed to the learned A.G.A. as well as opposite party No. 2 to file counter affidavit. Three days, thereafter, is allowed to the learned counsel for the revisionist to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶12

Put up this case in the list of fresh cases on 15.03.2022 before the appropriate Bench.

¶13

¶14

It is made clear that if on or before the next date fix counter affidavit has not been filed by the opposite parties, this case will be heard and decided finally.”

¶15

Today when the case is taken up no counter has been filed nor any counsel has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 2. It appears that opposite party No. 2 is not interested to contest the case.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has also not filed counter affidavit inspite of several opportunities were granted to the State.

¶17

In view of the above circumstances, this Court proceeds to hear the matter.

¶18

Heard Shri Ram Babu Sharma, the learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Vibhav Anand Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶19

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the informant has alleged in the F.I.R. that on 22.07.2021 at about 11:30 a.m. his younger daughter aged about 15 years, who is a student of Class-IX, has been enticed away by the revisionist. The wife of informant told him the entire incident on phone then he came to his house and with the help of his relatives he tried to search his daughter but he could not get success.

¶20

Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the victim in her statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that her name is Swati Kharwar alias Khushi Kharwan and name of her husband is Manish Yadav (revisionist). She has further stated that on 22.07.2021 she and the revisionist with the mutual consent went to Delhi and on 23.07.2021 she performed marriage in a temple with the revisionist on her own will and she had not been kidnapped by anyone. She has further stated that the mother of revisionist has refused to accept her.

¶21

¶22

Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that it is not in dispute that the victim and the revisionist are legally wedded wife and husband, and the victim in her statement had admitted this fact that she on her own sweet will has solemnized marriage with the revisionist and she went with the revisionist on her own will. No allegation of rape was made by the victim in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The entire story has been cooked up only with intention to create pressure upon the revisionist so that the mother of the victim accept the victim as her daughter-in-law as the victim is of another caste and the mother of the revisionist was not accepting her marriage with the revisionist. The allegation of rape and kidnapping has been made with malafide intention to create pressure on the family members of the revisionist. The medical report of the victim, as per the concerned doctor also does not support the version of the prosecution regarding allegation of rape. No any injury, internally or externally, was found on the private parts of the victim in her medical examination. Even though it has also been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the victim herself has admitted that she is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and she went with the revisionist on her own will, therefore, the allegation of rape is also not made out.

¶23

Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is well known to the victim prior to the alleged incident and it appears that there was consenting relationship between the revisionist and the victim.

¶24

Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is juvenile and there is no apprehension of reasoned ground for believing that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring him in association with any known criminals or expose

¶25

¶26

him to mental, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. He further submits that except this the revisionist has no previous criminal history. The mother of the revisionist is giving her undertaking that after release of the revisionist on bail, she will keep him under her custody and look after him properly. Further, the revisionist undertakes that he will not tamper the evidence and he will always cooperate the trial proceedings. There was no report regarding any previous antecedents of family or background of the revisionist. There is no chance of revisionist’s re-indulgence to bring him into association with known criminals.

¶27

Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that it is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile as he already been declared juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board, Chandauli vide order dated 03.09.2021. The revisionist was a juvenile aged 14 years, 09 months and 19 days on the date of occurrence. He was, thus, clearly below 16 years of age. He is in detention since 27.07.2021 in connection with the present crime and has completed a substantial period of sentence out of the maximum three years institutional incarceration permissible for a juvenile, under Section 18(1)(g) of the Act.

¶28

Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that thereafter the revisionist applied for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Chandauli upon which a report from the District Probation Officer was called for. The bail application was rejected vide order dated 24.09.2021, being aggrieved, the revisionist preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the Act, which was also dismissed vide order dated 02.11.2021. Hence the present criminal revision has been filed before this Hon’ble Court mainly on the following amongst other grounds:

¶29

¶30

(i) That the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to rivalry/village partibandi.

¶31

(ii) That the revisionist is juvenile and there is no apprehension of reasoned ground for believing that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring him in association with any known criminals or expose him to mental, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶32

(iii) That the revisionist has no criminal history except the present case.

¶33

(iv) That the law has been laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court that the seriousness of the offence is no ground to reject the bail of the juvenile and only three contingencies have been provided to be considered at the time of consideration of the bail application and those are if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶34

(v) That the father of the revisionist is giving his undertaking that after release of the revisionist on bail, he will keep him under his custody and look after him properly.

¶35

(vi) That the revisionist undertakes that he will not tamper the evidence and he will always cooperate the trial proceedings.

¶36

(vii) That both the courts below have committed gross illegality by rejecting the revisionist’s bail prayer after declaring him juvenile.

¶37

(viii) That both the courts below have given wrong findings without any material available on record.

¶38

(ix) That there was no report regarding any previous criminal antecedents of the family or background of the revisionist.

¶39

(x) That there is no chance of revisionist’s reindulgence to bring him into association with known criminals.

¶40

(xi) That the impugned orders passed by the courts below are totally arbitrary, illegal and bad in law.

¶41

¶42

(xii) That the findings given by the courts below are based on conjectures and surmises.

¶43

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the revisionist have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the revisionist that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶44

Learned counsel for the revisionist has pointed out that the revisionist has by now done more a substantial period of institutional incarceration. The maximum period for which a juvenile can be incarcerated in whatever form of detention, is three years, going by the provisions of Section 18(1)(g) of the Act.

¶45

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the revisionist's case with the submission that the release of the revisionist on bail would bring him into association of some known criminals, besides, exposing him to moral, physical and psychological danger. It is submitted that his release would defeat the ends of justice, considering that he is involved in a heinous offence.

¶46

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the impugned orders. The juvenile is clearly below 16 years of age and does not fall into that special category of a juvenile between the age of 16 and 18 years

¶47

¶48

whose case may be viewed differently, in case, they are found to be of a mature mind and persons well understanding the consequences of their actions. The provisions relating to bail for a juvenile are carried in Section 12 of the Act, which reads as under:

¶49

"(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:

¶50

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 person's 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.

¶51

(2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under subsection (1) by the officer-incharge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board.

¶52

(3) When such person is not released on bail under subsection (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order.

¶53

(4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail."

¶54

A perusal of the said provision show that bail for a juvenile, particularly, one who is under the age of 16 years, is a

¶55

¶56

matter of course and it is only in the event that his case falls under one or the other disentitling categories mentioned in the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act that bail may be refused. The merits of the case against a juvenile acquire some relevance under the last clause of the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 12 that speaks about the ends of justice being defeated. The other two disentitling categories are quite independent and have to be evaluated with reference to the circumstances of the juvenile. Those circumstances are to be gathered from the Social Investigation Report, the police report and in whatever other manner relevant facts enter the record.

¶57

What is of prime importance in this case is that the juvenile, who is a young boy, less than the age of 16 years, has no criminal history. There is nothing said against the juvenile, appearing from the Social Investigation Report that may show him to be a desperado or misfit in the society. The two courts below have held the juvenile disentitled to bail on account of his case falling under each of the three exceptions enumerated in the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 12, for which no reason has been indicated. That finding, in both the orders impugned, is based on an ipse dixit, in one case of the judge and in the other of the Board. Even if it be assumed that the offence was committed in the manner alleged, it would be rather strained logic to hold that release of the juvenile on bail would lead to the ends of justice being defeated. Both the courts below have also overlooked the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 CrPC and further the courts below have also not considered the radiological age of the victim as per the medical report.

¶58

¶59

This Court in the case of Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB) was pleased to observe that the gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration for refusing grant of bail to the juvenile.

¶60

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering that the victim in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she had gone with the revisionist on her own will and performed marriage with him and in view of the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 and the view taken by the Apex Court in the cases of Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. (supra)., this Court is of the view that the present criminal revision may be allowed and the revisionist may be released on bail.

¶61

In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 02.11.2021 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Chandauli in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2021 (Maneesh Yadav versus State of U.P. and another) and the order dated 24.09.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Chandauli in Case No. 68 of 2021 (State vs. Muneesh Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No. 181 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC read with 3(2)V of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Balua, District Chandauli, are

¶62

¶63

hereby set aside and reversed . The bail application of the revisionist stands allowed.

¶64

Let the revisionist, Maneesh Yadav , through his natural guardian/ mother, Smt. Sushma Devi, be released on bail in Case Crime No. 181 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC read with 3(2)V of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Balua, District Chandauli upon his mother furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Chandauli, subject to the following conditions:

¶65

(i) That the natural guardian/ mother, Smt. Sushma Devi 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 mother will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.

¶66

(ii) The revisionist and his mother, Smt. Sushma Devi, will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Wednesday of every calendar month commencing with the first Wednesday of May, 2022 and if during any calendar month the first Wednesday falls on a holiday, then on the next following working day.

¶67

(iii) 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, Chandauli on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

¶68

¶69

(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or the certified copy issued by the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶70

(v) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶71

(vi) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶72

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the court below is directed to make every possible endeavour to conclude the trial of the aforesaid case within a period of four months from today without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

¶73

Order Date :- 15.3.2022

¶74

Mustaqeem.

¶75

Digitally signed by MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN Date: 2022.03.23 11:54:35 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Maneesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maneesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjan Ali Vs State

Haribhan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ram Swaroop Vs Vinod Kumar Dohare and Ors.

Arjaan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramji @ Siddharth Vs State of Up and Another

Aadil (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another