1. The revision petition has been filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to set aside order dated 23.11.2020, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge(POCSO Act), Court No.15, Sitapur, in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2020 and order dted 2.11.2020, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur in Case Crime No.248 of 2020 under section 376 I.P.C. and section 5(m)/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Maholi district Sitapur.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisionist is a juvenile. The Juvenile Justice Board has also declared the revisionist as Juvenile. It is further submitted that the District Probation Officer has given his report in favour of the revisionist. He has stated that social and economic position of the family of the revisionist is normal. He has given some suggestion and ultimately concluded that he can be rehabilitated after giving appropriate psychological consultation and also to complete his education which has been disrupted due to this case.
It is further submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board and also the appellate court while rejecting the bail application(s) overlooked the opinion of the district Probation Officer as also the true spirit and intent of the Legislature as provided under Section 12 of the Act.
It is submitted that in the present case, no such contingency as provided in Section 12 of the Act is present; rather contrary to it, the District Probation Officer has opined that after giving psychological treatment and proper education, the revisionist can be made independent and no adverse material is available against the revisionist.
It is next submitted on behalf of the revisionist that bail to a child in reference to Section 12 of the Act in conflict with law is a rule and denial is an exception.
In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on a judgment and order dated 11.1.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No.332 of 2019 Kuldeep Vishwakarma (Minor) through his father Swami Nath versus State of U.P. and another.
Learned counsel undertakes that the deponent, i.e. the father shall provide the psychological consultation to the petitioner and also make an endeavour to complete his education. He further undertakes that the petitioner shall be kept in supervision and control of the father.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate does not dispute the legal proposition and submits that the court may pass appropriate order in the best interest of the child.
5. There is no material on record to indicate that in case the revisionist is released, it would 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.
6. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the criminal revision is liable to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 23.11.2020(supra) and order dated 2.11.2020 (supra) are set aside.
The revisionist is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of concerned Juvenile Justice Board subject to the condition that the father of the revisionist will take care of his education, give him psychological consultation and betterment and will not allow to indulge him in any criminal activity and will keep constant check on his activities.
Both the sureties are directed to be close relatives of the revisionist juvenile.
Order Date :- 26.8.2021 kkb/