1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist/juvenile Puneet Ray @ Karan through his mother Smt. Kusum Ray, under Section 102 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short the "Act of 2015") against the order dated 25.08.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur Case Crime No. 48 of 2020, under Sections 376D, 323, 504, 506, 352 Indian Penal Code (in short "I.P.C.") and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "SC/ST Act"), Police Station Dhammaur, District Sultanpur and the judgement dated 06.10.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Court No. 12, Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 24/2020.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this Criminal Revision are as follows:-
On 16.03.2020, an F.I.R. No. 48/2020 was registered on the basis of the written complaint moved by the prosecutrix alleging that on 03.03.2020 at about 3.30 PM, the revisionist/juvenile and another co-accused barged into her house and raped her showing countrymade pistol. Upon hue and cry raised by the victim, the mother and sister came and miscreants fled away.
3. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the revisionist-Puneet Ray @ Karan. The Court concerned took cognizance of the matter. The revisionist claimed juvenility and was so declared. Thereafter, the revisionist/juvenile moved bail application before the Juvenile Justice Board, that was rejected. Against that order an appeal was preferred under Section 101 of the Act of 2015 and appeal too was dismissed by the Appellate Court. Being aggrieved by the said order/judgment, the revisionist/juvenile preferred the present revision.
4. Heard Sri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Jas Karan Lal Maurya, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State respondent. None turned up on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 despite suffcient service of notice.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist/juvenile submitted that the revisionist has falsely been implicated in the crime. An adult co-accused has already been set at liberty by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1011 of 2020 (Prabhakar Rai Versus State of UP) dated 23.03.2021. The F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of 13 days and no plausible explanation was given for the same. Further more, the revisionist is a juvenile. He has been so declared by Juvenile Justice Board. His age was found below 16 years at the time of incident. He further submitted that Juvenile Justice Board did not consider properly, the report of District Probation Officer (in short D.P.O.), while deciding the bail application of the revisionist/juvenile. There is nothing adverse in the report of D.P.O. No criminal antecedents of the revisionist have been mentioned in the D.P.O. report. He further submitted that the case of revisionist/juvenile does not fall under any of the exceptions provided in Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015. The learned Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court both have wrongly concluded that the release of the juvenile will bring the juvenile in association of known criminals, expose the juvenile to moral, physical and psychological danger and defeat the ends of justice. Hence, the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as judgment passed by the Appellate Court should be set aside and the revisionist/juvenile should be released on bail.
6. Learned A.G.A opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that the revisionist barged into the house of the victim and committed rape on her. The age of the victim was about 19 years. She has supported the version of F.I.R. in her statement recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. So, the revisionist should not be released on bail. He further submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and judgment passed by the Appellate Court. Hence, the revision should be dismissed.
7. Considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
8. Perusal of the record shows that the revisionist was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board. His age was found 15 years, 4 months and 22 days at the time of incident i.e. below 16 years. There is nothing adverse in the report of D.P.O., so as to bring the case of the revisionist under any of three exceptions mentioned in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015.
9. Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015 in this regard lays down as under :-
"12.Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law,- (1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or 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 or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person:
Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision."
10. Thus, it is law that a bail application of a juvenile can be rejected only:-
(i) If there appears reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into association with any known criminal; or,
(ii) expose the juvenile to moral, physical or psychological danger; or,
(iii) release of the juvenile would defeat the ends of justice.
11. In the present matter the Juvenile Justice Board came to the conclusion that if the juvenile/revisionist was released on bail, there is possibility of his coming in association of known criminals which will cause moral, physical and psychological danger to him, and ends of justice stand defeated.
12. The Appellate Court while confirming the order of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board has also accepted the conclusion given by the Principal Magistrate and dismissed the appeal.
13. Legal position is that, for a juvenile in conflict with law bail is the Rule. The bail application of a juvenile can be rejected exceptionally. There is nothing in the D.P.O. report to lead the case of the revisionist under any of the exceptions provided in Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015. The juvenile is in protective home since 14.06.2020.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears just to set aside the order dated 25.08.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur as well as the judgment dated 06.10.2020 passed by the Appellate Court.
15. The Revision is allowed.
16. The order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board dated 25.08.2020 and judgment dated 06.10.2020 passed by Appellate Court are set-aside.
17. Let the revisionist/juvenile (Puneet Ray @ Karan) be released on bail in Case Crime No. 48 of 2020, under Sections 376D, 323, 504, 506, 352 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Dhammaur, District Sultanpur and be given in custody of his mother on her furnishing a personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur subject to following conditions :-
(i) That the mother of the juvenile shall 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 be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and she will ensure that the juvenile do not repeat the offence.
(ii) The mother will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that she will encourage the juvenile to pursue his studies.
(iii) The revisionist Puneet Ray @ Karan and his mother Smt. Kusum Ray will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Monday of every month with effect from the first Monday of the month next after release from custody, and if during any calendar month, the first Monday falls on a holiday then on the following working day.
(iv) 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, Sultanpur on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board determines.
(v) The party shall file a computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.