High Court allowed revision set aside lower court orders failed to consider Juvenile Justice Act Section 12 and released minor on bail with conditions.
Impugned orders set aside; minor released on bail with undertaking from father and supervision by Probation Officer.
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:209228
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 829 of 2023
Revisionist :- X Minor Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Surendra Nath Yadav,R.B. Singh,Sanjay Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on 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 impugned judgment and order dated 20.01.2023 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Court No.1, Deoria in Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2022 (Sooraj Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as order dated 09.12.2022 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Doeria in Case Crime No.75 of 2021, under Sections 363, 376 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Ekauna, District Deoria and also prays to release the revisionist/delinquent on bail in the aforesaid case.
It is submitted that in this case the delinquent/applicant was aged about 17 years and was juvenile at the time of alleged incident. Further submitted that victim was also aged about 16 yars and went with the revisionist voluntarily and physical relations were established between them with her will. The statement of the victim was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate in which she admitted the fact that she went with him voluntarily. First of all she went to Barhalganj then to Gorakhpur and then to Delhi where she lived with the revisionist in a rented room. No any relationship was established by force with the victim. She also expressed her willingness to live with the revisionist which shows that she was willing and volunteer. The report submitted by the D.P.O. is also not adverse for the present delinquent even though the juvenility of the delinquent was not considered either by the J.J. Board or by the appellate court and also the provisions as contained u/s 12 of the aforesaid Act were not considered by the courts below while passing the aforesaid orders. The delinquent is in Juvenile Care Home since 03.04.2022 (i.e. more than one and a half years) and his psychology is being affected adversely, therefore, requested to set aside the orders passed by the J.J. Board as well as appellate court and allow the present criminal revision as the orders passed by the courts below cannot be said to be in conformity with law.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the provisions as contained u/s 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, the report submitted by the District Probation Officer, the victim was willing and volunteer and the period present delinquent remained in child care home, it appears that Juvenile Justice 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 09.12.2022 and the appellate court dated 20.01.2023 are, hereby, set aside and the present criminal revision is hereby, allowed.
It is directed that delinquent/applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case on executing person 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 natural guardian/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 natural guardian/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 natural guardian/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 :- 1.11.2023 Ashok Gupta
Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the orders by Juvenile Justice Board and appellate court ignoring Section 12 of J.J. Act and relevant material were in conformity with law.
Whether the petitioner minor juvenile delinquent should be released on bail.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
X Minor
State Of U.P.
Subhash Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
