1. This Revision is directed against an appellate order of the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur dated 30.10.2020, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2020 preferred by the revisionist, and affirming an order of the Juvenile Justice Board, denying bail, pending trial.
2. A First Information Report was lodged on 17.06.2019 at 19:05 hours, by the second opposite party, Mursaleen, saying that the informant lives at Hindan Vihar, near Bilal Masjid. His family stayed with him. On 16.06.2019, his daughter Aisha, aged about 15 years, was asleep at home, during the night hours. At about 1 O' Clock in the odd hours, his brother's son, Adil, entered his house and stabbed his daughter. His daughter sustained stab injuries to her abdomen and neck. The distress call from his daughter led the second opposite party to notice the incident, whereupon, the revisionist made good his escape. The police registered Case Crime No. 963 of 2019, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601, Police Station - Sihani Gate, District - Ghaziabad. The revisionist was arrested. Being a minor, he applied for bail to the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad. The revisionist's bail plea came up before the Board on 13.03.2020, and was rejected. The revisionist, thereupon, appealed to the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 20152. The appeal aforesaid was numbered on the file of the learned Sessions Judge as Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2020. This appeal came up before the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, on 13.08.2020, for determination. It was dismissed by a judgement and order of that date.
3. Aggrieved, this revision has been filed.
4. Heard Mr. Azaz Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist, and Mr. S.S. Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State. No one appears on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3, despite service.
5. It is contended by Mr. Azaz Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist, that the revisionist is a minor, aged below 16 years. His date of birth, recorded in the Social Investigation Report, is 05.06.2005. Going by the aforesaid date of birth, the revisionist was aged 14 years and 9 months on the date of occurrence. It is made out that revisionist is a scholar, who is in the mainstream of regular education. He is a student of Class IX. In the event, he is subjected to institutional incarceration, he would come into contact with hardened criminals, which would undo the purpose for which the Act was enacted by the Legislature. Mr. Ahmad further argues that going by the fact that the revisionist is a young offender, aged a little less than 15 years, with no criminal background, ought not to be detained. Learned counsel has referred to the Social Investigation Report to show that the revisionist has a family, compromising his father at home, besides five siblings, two sisters and three brothers. All his siblings are pursuing their studies in various classes, from II to VIII. His mother passed way four years ago. It is impressed upon the Court that the revisionist is part of a cohesive family, comprising his father and other siblings, with whom he enjoys a friendly relationship. On the foot of these facts, learned counsel submits that he ought not be denied bail, going by the provision of Section 12(1) of the Act. It is urged by the learned counsel that Section 12(1) of the Act postulates bail as a matter of right to a juvenile, particularly one below the age of 16 years, unless his case falls in one of the three exceptions contemplated in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act. It is urged that the revisionist's case does not fall in any of those exceptions. In support of his submissions, Mr. Ahmad has drawn the attention of this Court towards a decision in Amit v. State of U.P. & Another3 where it has been held :
14. In this case, there is nothing either on record or in the report of the Probation Officer that after the release the revisionist would come in association with any known criminal or his release would expose him to moral, physical or phychological danger.
6. Emphasizing the relevance of the Social Investigation Report, learned counsel for the revisionist has reposed faith in the decision of this Court in Anshu Yadav alias Pintu Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another4.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that as there was no adverse report by the Jail Superintendent, District Prison, Jhansi as also by the District Probation Officer, Auraiya, on which a bail application of a juvenile could be rejected, therefore, the rejection of the bail application of the revisionist was not justified in law ......
7. Mr. S.S. Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, has opposed this revision, with the submission that the nature of the crime is gruesome, and if the revisionist were set free on bail, it would lead to ends of justice being defeated.
8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced on both sides and perused the record. Section 12 of the Act reads :
12. Bail of juvenile.--
(1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is 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 1[or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution of fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
(2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer incharge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board.
(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order.
9. No doubt, in the case of a juvenile, bail is to be granted as a matter of course, but the Legislature has distinctly engrafted three exceptions to the rule of universal bail. It is true that there is no evidence here to bring the petitioner's case in the first of the two exceptions to the rule, that is to say,the likelihood of the juvenile coming into association with any known criminal, or him being exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. This spares the last clause of the exceptions to the rule, that is to say, the juvenile's release defeating the ends of justice. It is true that merits of the case, as such, are not relevant. But it is equally true that where the offence is so gruesome that it severely jolts the conscience of the society, or places the juvenile at risk of retribution, or sends a message that a dastardly offence may be committed by a juvenile, and yet his liberty, pending proceedings, cannot be curtailed, would certainly lead to ends of justice being defeated. It is in this manner that the nature of the crime, the circumstances in which it is committed and other relevant things, have bearing on the right of the juvenile to be enlarged on bail. It is not per se merits of the prosecution case against the juvenile, but the impact of the offence on society, circumstances in which the crime has been committed, which require consideration.
10. Here, the circumstances of the crime show that the revisionist, for whatever reason, entered the living quarters of his uncle (father's brother), and stabbed his cousin, the victim, while the other family members were around. He did so when the victim was asleep, at 1 O' Clock in the night. The evidence about the attack, that the medico-legal report shows, discloses a determined and dastardly attack, to do the victim to death. There are nine incised wounds sustained by the victim, on various parts of her body, including the front of neck. The manner and the circumstances in which the crime has been committed, places the tranquillity of the society at a serious level of threat. It sends out a message that family members as close as a cousin, cannot be trusted with something as precious as security of life, let alone limb. The kind of conduct exhibited by the revisionist prima facie is certainly one where his release on bail, pending proceedings, in the considered opinion of this Court, would lead to ends of justice being defeated. This Court does not find it to be a fit case, where the orders impugned ought to be interfered with.
11. In the result, this revision fails and is dismissed.
12. The Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad, where proceedings are pending, is ordered to expedite the same and conclude the trial within a period of three months next, in accordance with law.
13. Let this order be communicated to the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad, through the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, by the Joint Registrar (Compliance).
Order Date :- 22.1.2021 I. Batabyal