Revisionist Is Minor 'a' Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:48627

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 476 of 2023

¶4

Revisionist :- Revisionist Is Minor 'A'

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Vyas Narayan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Opposite parties No. 2, 3 and 5 have been served notice personally and opposite party No. 4 has been served notice through office, however none is present on their behalf and neither any counter affidavit has been filed.

¶9

Instant Criminal Revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act, 2015 is preferred against the order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Exclusive-First, District-Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2023 against the order dated 16.03.2023 passed by learned Principal Magistratre/Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli arising out of case No. 28 of 2020, under Section 376-D, 506

¶10

I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Gadaganj, District-Raebareli, whereby the learned courts below has

¶11

wrongly rejected the prayer of bail of the revisionist.

¶12

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is an innocent person and he has falsely and wrongly been implicated in the present case by the complainant due to enmity. It is further submitted that revisionist has been declared juvenile and his age is found to be 17 years, 2 months and 5 days on the date of occurrence. It is also contended that victim has been declared hostile during the trial and revisionist is languishing in jail since 15.02.2021 having no criminal history and it is prayed to set-aside the order dated 16.03.2023 as well as 17.04.2023.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the above contentions but conceded that the revisionist is not having any criminal history and the victim has turned hostile during trial.

¶14

I have considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

¶15

It transpires that as per order dated 16.03.2023, revisionist has been declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, this order is not challenged in the instant appeal, therefore, it has attained finality. There is contradiction in the statement of victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. and her statement recorded during trial. Victim did not support the prosecution version during the trial and had turned hostile

¶16

during the trial. As per the D.P.O. report dated 03.03.2023, nothing has been disclosed regarding the conduct of revisionist. It also transpires that learned courts below have refused bail to the revisionist on the ground that case is of heinous nature.

¶17

The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that it is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. It has been submitted that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, prayer for bail of a juvenile can be rejected 'if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger of that his release would defeat the ends of justice'.

¶18

This Court has to see whether the opinion of the appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned 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 Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile, which are as follows:

¶19

(1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or

¶20

(2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or

¶21

(3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice?

¶22

Admittedly, gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail under Section 12 of the Act.

¶23

It has further been submitted that gravity of the offence could not be relevant for refusing grant of bail to the juvenile, as has been held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P., 2010 (68) ACC 616 and it has been a consistent view of various courts. It has also been submitted that there exists no material to justify rejection of bail on the grounds envisaged by Section 12 of the Act.

¶24

In view of the above, this revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.03.2023 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli in Case Crime No.28 of 2020, under Section 376-D, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Gadaganj, District-Raebareli as well as order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Exclusive-First, District-Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2023 are hereby set aside .

¶25

Let the revisionist be released on bail in Criminal Appeal

¶26

No. 15 of 2023 arising out of case No. 28 of 2020, under

¶27

Section 376-D, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Gadaganj, District-Raebareli, on furnishing of a personal bond alongwith an undertaking on behalf of revisionist by his legal guardian/father to the effect that he will not permit the revisionist to come in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice and provide no occasion to the revisionist whereby his release on bail would defeat the ends of justice, by his legal guardian/father and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to following conditions :-

¶28

(1) Revisionist will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail.

¶29

(2) Revisionist will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court.

¶30

(3) Revisionist shall remain present, in person, before the Board on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case; (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Board that absence of the revisionist is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Board to treat such default as abuse of liberty of

¶31

bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶32

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and Board will be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶33

(Renu Agarwal,J.)

¶34

Order Date :- 24.7.2023 Karan

¶35

Digitally signed by :- KUMAR KARAN RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Revisionist Is Minor 'a' v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Revisionist Is Minor 'a' v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dipti Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Gyanendra Asthana Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Trivedi (X) Under the Gaurdianship of Father Anoop Trivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and 3 Others

Jarrar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Sunil Kumar Shukla Vs Smt.Pooja and Anr.