Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2177 of 2021 Revisionist :- Rahul Sahu (Minor) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Shyam Sunder Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Rajiv Dwivedi
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Shyam Sunder Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rajiv Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and also perused the material available on record.
This Criminal Revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 read with Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the impugned judgement and order dated 20.08.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Exclusive Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, Fatehpur, in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2020, State Vs. Rahul Sahu and also the judgement and order dated 17.06.2020 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur, in Case Crime No.98 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304B, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Gazipur, District- Fatehpur.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the co- accused persons, namely, Raju Sahu and Rajwati have been acquitted vide order dated 05.04.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No.201 of 2019. The revisionist being juvenile, his trial could not be completed. It has also been argued that all the witnesses have resiled from their earlier statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and have not supported the prosecution. The case of the revisionist stands at parity with the co-accused persons who have already been acquitted in the present case. The revisionist is languishing in jail since 31.05.2019. In case, the revisionist is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Sri Rajeev Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA could not controvert the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist.
Once it is determined that the revisionist is juvenile, the bail application should be normally allowed unless it is covered under the exceptions of the Juvenile Justice Act. The courts below have not exercised its jurisdiction in a legal way, more so because the adult accused persons have already been released on bail long back. It will become a mockery of the juvenile justice if the adult members are released on bail and the juvenile is directed to be kept in remand home.
Provision has been made under Section 12 of the Act that when any person accused of a bailable or a non-bailable offence and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or is brought before a board then irrespective of the accusation he shall be released on bail or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit institution except when :-
1. if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminals, or
2. that it will expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or
3. that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
Let the revisionist, Rahul Sahu (Minor) through his natural guardian Rajwati be released on bail in the aforesaid case upon his natural guardian furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board concerned subject to the following conditions:
(i) That the natural guardian of the revisionist 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 natural guardian will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.
(ii) 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 concerned on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.
(iii) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or the certified copy issued by the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.
(iv) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(v) 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.
However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the court below is directed to make every possible endeavour to conclude the trial of the aforesaid case as expeditious as possible.
In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The impugned judgement and order dated 20.08.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Exclusive Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, Fatehpur, in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2020, State Vs. Rahul Sahu and also the judgement and order dated 17.06.2020 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur, in Case Crime No.98 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304B, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Gazipur, District- Fatehpur, are hereby set aside.
Office is directed to transmit the certified copy of this order to the court concerned for information and its necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 16.12.2021 Siddhant