Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1089 of 2021 Revisionist :- Manish Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd. Zaid,Pratik J. Nagar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Zaid, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Shashi Bhushan Rai, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
2. This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 being aggrieved of the order dated 25.02.2021, whereby the Juvenile Board rejected bail application. Thereafter, being aggrieved of this order, Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2021 (Manish Kumar Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.429 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC read with Section 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station- Naugava Sadath, District-Amroha was filed before the Additional District and Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Amroha, but vide order dated 05.04.2021 even the Appellate Court has rejected the application.
3. Reading the contents of the statements given by the prosecutorix/victim to the effect that she was already knowing the juvenile and had left her home on her own volition to travel with the accused. It is submitted that, it is a matter of consent and he had neither coerced, nor acted in a forceful manner so to cause any grant of undue consent. It is further submitted that revisionist is in custody since 06.11.2020 and, therefore, he be enlarged on bail.
4. Sri Gambhir Singh, learned AGA for the State submits that as per the report of the District Probationary Officer, he has not recommended for granting bail to the juvenile on the ground that there are chances of his again falling in bad company and may have adverse impact on the character of the juvenile and may also result in mis-carriage of justice. It is submitted that on the grounds, on which learned Juvenile Board has rejected the bail, no further indulgence is required in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court in case of Bhola @ Satendra Vs. State of U.P. and another; [2014 (6) ADJ 185], where under the similar facts and circumstances, bail was rejected by the Board and the Appellate Corut, that in case juvenile is released on bail, possibility of his coming into contract with criminals cannot be ruled-out, it is held by High Court that in absence of any material or evidence or reasonable ground, it cannot be said that release of revisionist would defeat ends of justice and impugned orders were quashed by the court concerned.
6. After going through the decision rendered in case of Bhola @ Satendra (supra) and taking into consideration stipulations mentioned in para-8 of the said order, wherein, reliance has been placed in case of Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan; 2006 Cri.LJL 1373, it is held that "at the time of consideration of bail under Section 12 of the Act, the merit or nature of offence has no relevancy. The language of the Section 12 of the Act, using the word "shall" is mandatory in nature and providing non obstante clause by using the expression "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force", he be released on bail…………………..", shows the intention of legislature to grant bail to the delinquent juvenile offender with certain exceptions. It is for the prosecution to bring on record such materials while opposing the bail and to make out any of the grounds/exceptions provided in the Section which may persuade the Court not to release the juvenile on bail", I am of the opinion that report of the District Probationary Officer has not assigned any reasons for its apprehension and without taking into consideration the attending circumstances, impugned orders have been passed by the courts below which cannot be prima facie sustained, taking into consideration an admission on the part of the victim, that she had left her home on her own volition as she was already knowing the accused and they use to talk to each other, revision-petitioner child is entitled to be enlarged on bail by requiring his natural guardian to furnish a suitable undertaking.
7. In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed.
8. The impugned order dated 05.04.2021 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Amroha and the order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Amroha rejecting the bail application of the revisionist in connection with Case Crime No.429 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC read with Section 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station-Naugava Sadath, District-Amroha are hereby set aside and reversed. The bail application of the revisionist stands allowed.
9. Let the revisionist 'X' through his natural guardian be released on bail in aforesaid case, upon his father furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Amroha subject to the following conditions:
(i) that the natural guardian will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come 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 and his natural guardian will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month commencing with the first Monday of September, 2021 and if during any calendar month the first Monday falls on a holiday, then on the following working day.
(iii) The District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the revisionist and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Amroha on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.
(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(v) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(vi) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 Ashutosh Digitally signed by Justice Vivek Agarwal Date: 2021.08.26 18:22:07 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad