Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ram Surat Patel, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present criminal appeal has been filed to quash the order 15.2.2020 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no. 253 of 2020 (Sachin Singh Chauhan vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime no. 788 of 2019, under Sections 377, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Section 5/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, P.S. Soraon, district-Prayagraj.
As per prosecution case the grandson of the informant, aged about 10 years used to go for tuition in the house of the present accused but after some days he has refused to go for tuition. On 20.8.2019 at about 4:00 p.m. the informant again sent him for tuition. At about 5:00 p.m. the grandson of the informant returned back and he was weeping. Upon being asked by the informant his grandson narrated that the present accused is sexually assaulting him for the last two months. It was also alleged in the FIR that the present accused had threatened him to kill, if he narrates the story to someone.
Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that the allegations, which have been levelled against the appellant-applicant are totally fake and false. The medical report of the victim does not corroborate the allegation of sexual assault. No marks of violence or injury were found on his body by the doctor who had examined him. He next submits that when the accused asked the tuition fees from the informant, which had not been given to him for several months, then the first information report was lodged against him with the ulterior intention of harassing him. The appellant-applicant has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is also been submitted that the appellant-applicant has no criminal history and DPO report is in his favour and the appellant-applicant has remained confined in jail since 23.8.2019.
Submission of learned counsel for the appellant-applicant is that the accused has already been declared juvenile. Further submission is that applicant is juvenile and his bail/surrender application was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 15.2.2018.
The submission of learned counsel for the appellant-applicant is that it is not in dispute that the appellant-applicant is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 hereinafter 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 wound 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, Sri Ram Surat Patel, learned counsel for the informant have opposed prayer for bail.
In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The order 15.2.2020 in the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.
Let the appellant-applicant Sachin Singh Chauhan(Minor) 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 appellant-applicant be given into custody of his father;
(ii)The appellant-applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(iii) The appellant-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;
(iv) The appellant-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 :- 20.1.2021/Faridul