High Court rejected criminal revision filed by a juvenile against bail rejection orders by Juvenile Justice Board and Special Judge in a POCSO/IPC case involving sexual assault allegations, finding no merit in the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3409 of 2022 Revisionist :- X (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Anshu Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
This Criminal Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act') has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2022 affirming the order, dated 10.06.2022 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Etawah in Bail Application No. 55 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 150 of 2022, under sections 376-D, 452 IPC and section 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah, whereby the bail application of the revisionist has been rejected.
The prosecution case in brief, is that the informant lodged an FIR dated 18.04.2022 against the revisionist and one other person alleging inter alia therein that on 18.04.2022 at about 6.30 p.m. when she was cooking food in her house, both the accused persons came to his house and committed misdeed with her. On the basis of aforesaid allegation, FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 150 of 2022, under sections 376, 452 IPC and 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
The revisionist was arrested and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board. An application under Section 12 of the Act has been filed before the Juvenile Justice Board for extending the benefit of bail. The learned Juvenile Justice Board considered the application and rejected the same vide order dated 10.06.2022 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Etawah in Bail Application No. 55 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 150 of 2022, under sections 376-D, 452 IPC and section 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah.
Being aggrieved thereof, an appeal was preferred before the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah. The learned learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah affirmed the order of the Juvenile Justice Board and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision.
Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that co-accused Rahul has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.10.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22584 of 2022. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that medical examination report of the victim girl does not corroborate the commission of crime. Dr. Pallavi Dixit, who conducted the medical examination of the victim, has observed in the medical report that no alive or dead spermatozoa seen. There is no sign of use of force/forceful penetration of vagina. However, final opinion is received pending on the availability of FSL report.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is a juvenile, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, the bail application of a juvenile can only be refused if there appears to be a reasonable ground for believing that his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminals or expose him to moral danger. There is no likelihood that the revisionist would come into the contact of any known criminal. On ground of seriousness of the offence, the bail application cannot be rejected. The learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board and the learned Appellate Court had erroneously rejected the bail application.
Learned Additional Government Advocate supported the impugned orders and while opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist, submits that there is clear allegation of commission of rape in the statements of the prosecutrix/victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. No FSL report is received so far, which may support the argument of learned counsel for the revisionist. The case of the revisionist does not stand with the parity of the co-accused Rahul since, the victim in her statement under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has specifically made allegation with regard to commission of crime against the revisionist. He further submits that the allegation against the revisionist is of commission of an offence, which is an immoral act, therefore, there is reasonable apprehension that if the revisionist is released on bail there is every likelihood that he may be exposed to moral or psychological danger to the victim.
Before adverting to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it will be useful to quote Section 12 of the Act, which reads as under:
" 12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law.
(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:
(2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer in-charge 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,
(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (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."
Admittedly, the revisionist is 15 years, 9 months, 3 days of age and he has been declared as juvenile vide order dated 08.06.2022 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Etawah, and, therefore, he is a juvenile and consequently, deemed to be a juvenile offender within the meaning of the Act. The prosecutrix is also a minor (girl) and she is about 16 years of age as per medical report.
The revisionist was not granted bail by the learned Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 10.06.2022 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Etawah in Bail Application No. 55 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 150 of 2022, under sections 376-D, 452 IPC and section 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah. From a bare perusal of the order dated 10.06.2022 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, it is apparent that the bail application was rejected on the ground that there is reasonable apprehension that if the revisionist is released on bail, there is every likelihood that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons given herein above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders that may call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. This criminal revision is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.11.2022 Sazia
Digitally signed by SAZIA AQUIL Date: 2022.11.21 17:06:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail to a juvenile offender dealing with serious offences under POCSO and IPC can be refused.
Whether there is any infirmity in the impugned orders refusing bail to the revisionist.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
X (Minor)
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
