Criminal Revision allowed setting aside lower court orders as they ignored Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015 regarding DNA inconclusive reports and mental impact, releasing juvenile on bail with undertakings.
Orders set aside; delinquent released on bail via personal bond by father and two sureties, subject to reporting and behavioral undertakings.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:193745
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 103 of 2021
Revisionist :- Vikas @ Timna Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Amit Kumar,Nirbhay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.
The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist through his father under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act-2015 (hereinafter referred to as "J.J. Act, 2015) to allow the present revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 15.12.2020 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act)-I, Gautam Budh Nagar in Second Bail Application No. 2956 of 2020 as well as order dated 2.11.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Gautam Budh Nagar. Further prayed to stay the operation of the aforesaid orders and to release the revisionist on bail in Case Crime No. 468 of 2020, under Sections 376 IPC & Section 5 J(II), 5K, 5(ta)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, the delinquent was juvenile aged about 16 years and 6 months at the time of alleged offence. Further submitted that as per allegation in the F.I.R. rape was said to be committed by the present revisionist and other co-accused Rampal who was major. The victim was said to have become pregnant regarding which D.N.A. sample was taken form the present revisionist and other co-accused person but as per F.S.L. report paternity could not be established with the present revisoinist. On account of village rivalry he was named in the F.I.R. though he did not commit rape with the victim. It is also submitted that there is nothing on record to show the complicity of present delinquent. There is nothing adverse to the present delinquent in the report as submitted by the District Probation Officer. The provisions as contained under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act had not been considered by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as appellate court while rejecting the appeal which cannot be said to be in conformity with the law. The delinquent is in Juvenile Care Home since 2.8.2020 and his psychology is being affected adversely, therefore, requested to set aside the order passed by the J.J. Board as well as appellate court and allow the criminal revision.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the aforesaid prayer.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the period of delinquent remained in Juvenile Care Home, nothing was found in the D.N.A. report, the provisions as contained u/s 12 Juvenile Justice Act and report submitted by the D.P.O. it appears that J.J. Board as well as the appellate court had not considered the relevant provisions and the material on record in well manner but passed the orders without applying their judicial mind. In this way, there appears ground in this revision and the orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court are liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the orders passed by Juvenile Justice Board dated 2.11.2020 and the appellate court dated 15.12.2020 are, hereby, set aside and present Criminal Revision is hereby, allowed .
It is directed that delinquent/applicant be released on bail on executing personal bond by the revisionist (father of the delinquent) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board concerned on following conditions:-
(i) The revisionist/father will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the revisionist will not be permitted to go into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical, or psychological danger and further that the father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.
(ii) The revisionist/father will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juvenile will pursue his study at the appropriate level which he would be encouraged to do besides other constructive activities and not be allowed to waste his time in unproductive and excessive recreational pursuits.
(iii) Juvenile and the revisionist/father will report to the Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month.
(iv) The Probation Officer will keep a strict vigil on the activities of the juvenile and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, concerned on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.
Order Date :- 9.10.2023 A. Singh
Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and appellate court were passed without applying judicial mind by ignoring Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015.
Whether the revisionist, a juvenile found innocent of paternity via DNA, should be released on bail.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Vikas @ Timna
State Of U.P.
Subhash Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
