The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the judgment and order dated 3.2.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Barabanki in Criminal Misc. Case No.6 of 2020 and order dated 12.3.2020 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Court No.44, Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No.08 of 2020.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the date of the offence the age of juvenile applicant has been determined by the Juvenile Justice Board as 13 years, 6 months and 11 days.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated without their being any eye witness account of incident. The applicant is in jail since 19.2.2019.
It is next submitted that the District Probation officer, Barabanki in his report has stated that during his inquiry he has found that the conduct of the applicant was normal int he village. He has no criminal history. The physical condition has been found normal. No social or economic adversity has been found and the mental state has been found better than normal.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the present criminal revision. It is submitted, the incident reported is true and it is wrong to say that the allegations made against the applicant are false, and/are motivated. Also, reliance has been placed on the findings recorded in the bail rejection orders to submit that the instant revision may be dismissed.
It is not in dispute that the applicant is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Act. Under Section 12 of the Act, the prayer for bail of a juvenile may 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 would defeat the ends of justice'.
The court has 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 the Act. Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail may be refused to a juvenile offender. These are:-
(i) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or
(ii) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or
(iii) that his release would defeat the ends of justice?
Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the bail. It is not a relevant factor while considering to grant bail to the juvenile. It has been so held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB). It has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions of this court.
Thus, it remains largely undisputed that the applicant - was a juvenile on the date of occurrence; does not appear to be prone to criminal proclivity or criminal psychology, in light of the observations of the D.P.O; does not have a criminal history; has been in confinement for an unduly long period of time, in as much as the trial has not concluded within time frame contemplated by the Act. Even otherwise, there does not appear to exist any factor or circumstance mentioned in section 12 of the Act as may dis-entitle the applicant to grant of bail, at this stage. The applicant undertakes to address the statutory concerns expressed in section 12 of the Act, as to the safety and well being of the applicant, upon his release.
Having considered the submission made by the parties and taking into consideration the impugned judgment and order and the report of the District Probation Officer as also the legal proposition in reference to Section 12 as also Section 3(i)(iv)(v) and (xiv) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, I am of the considered view that the learned lower court has committed material irregularity in arriving at the conclusion that the release of the revisionist on bail will defeat the ends of justice and there is possibility that the revisionist may fall in danger physically, morally and psychologically, if released on bail.
In view of the observations made above, the present criminal revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 3.2.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Barabanki in Criminal Misc. Case No.6 of 2020 and order dated 12.3.2020 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Court No.44, Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No.08 of 2020, are set aside and 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 Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur subject to the condition that parent of the revisionist will take care of his education 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:-17.8.2021 Madhu