Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1112 of 2018 Revisionist :- Ajay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mehul Khare Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated 12.03.2018 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 3/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2018 (Ajay Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly in Case Crime No. 385 of 2017, under Sections- 376, 452, 506 I.P.C. and Section 4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Fatehganj (East), District- Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that admittedly, the applicant was a juvenile on the date of alleged incident being 17 years of age while the victim was 13 years of age.
It is then stated that the applicant has been completely falsely implicated on account of old animosity between the parties as has also been mentioned in the DPO report. It is then stated that though the incident is alleged to the date 27.10.2017, there is no medical evidence to corroborate the allegation of rape in the medical report of the date 30.10.2017. In this regard, the medical report itself clearly mentions that there are no signs of recent sexual assault. It is then submitted that no injury either internal or external having been found, in such circumstance the allegation of rape is clearly exaggerated, if any, on complete imagination. It is then submitted that the learned court below has completely erred in relying on the DPO report for the purpose of rejecting the bail application of the applicant, inasmuch as other than general and vague observation made in that report, there is no specific or strong objection raised therein.
It is then submitted that the applicant has remained confined in the child observation home since 20.11.2017 and that there is no specific objection raised in the DPO report other than general and vague observations.
Further, submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that it is not in dispute that the applicant is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (here-in-after referred to as 'Juvenile Justice Act'). It has been submitted that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act prayer for bail of a juvenile can be rejected 'if there appear 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 or that his release would defeat the ends of justice'. It has been submitted that no such grounds are available on record to deny bail to the applicant.
This court is to see whether the opinion of the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and orders are in consonance with the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile. They are:-
(1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or
(2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or
(3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice?
Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail in Section 12 of the Act.
It has been submitted that gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration 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. reported in 2010
(68) ACC 616(LB) and it has been a consistent view of various courts. It has been submitted that there exist no material to justify rejection of bail on the grounds envisaged by Section 12 of the Act.
Learned AGA has opposed prayer for bail but he could not demonstrate from the record that there existed any of the grounds on which bail application of a juvenile could be rejected keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The order dated 12.03.2018 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 3/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2018 (Ajay Vs. State of U.P.) and the order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly in are hereby set aside.
Let the applicant Ajay involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(ii) The applicant through guardian shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;
(iii) The applicant through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 Lbm/-