Back
2021 Supreme(All) 676
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHAAD
Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.
Vipin Mali (Minor) Thru. Mother Smt. Pushpa Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 861 of 2019
Decided On : 20-07-2021
For the Appellant : Dhirendra Kumar Mishra, Anil Kumar Tiwari, Nitesh Yadav, Ramakar Shukla
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate, Gyanendra Mishra
Point of law: 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.
Headnote:
Criminal revision - The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 12(1), 18(1)(g), 101, 102 – Indian Penal code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 - The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 7/8 – Criminal Procedure code, 1973 - Section 164 - Revisionist claimed juvenility and was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board - He submitted that Juvenile Justice Board did not consider properly, the report of District Probation Officer while deciding the bail application - The revisionist/juvenile already has spent about 2-1/2 years in judicial custody - Case of revisionist/juvenile does not fall under any of the exceptions provided in Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015.
Finding of the court: 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 - In the report of the D.P.O. available on record, which has been filed through supplementary affidavit, no criminal antecedents of juvenile has been mentioned. The family status is average. There is nothing against the juvenile in the report, so as to bring his case under the exceptions provided in proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015. Bail granted on condition.
Result: Revision allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist/juvenile Vipin Mali through his mother Smt. Pushpa Devi, under Section 102 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short the "Act of 2015") against the judgement dated 30.05.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Ist, Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2019 as well as order dated 18.04.2019 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur in Case Crime No. No. 541/2018, under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code (in short "I.P.C.") and Section 7/8 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short "POCSO Act"), Police Station Lambhua, District Sultanpur.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this Criminal Revision are as follows:-
An F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.541 of 2018 was registered against the revisionist/juvenile and four other co-accused persons on the basis of written complaint moved by the complainant Ram Bahadur Yadav narrating the facts that on 15.11.2018 at about 9 AM, the daughter of the complainant aged about 17 years, who was studying in Class 12th in Sarvodaya Inter College, Lambhua, Sultanpur went to her School and when she did not come back, he made a search for her but could not know anything. On the next date, the complainant enquired about her daughter in her School, he came to know that his daughter did not reach the School on 15.11.2018. Thereafter, the complainant made a further search and came to know that Vipin Mali resident of the same village was also missing from the date of incident. Arjun and Dheeraj Yadav, who were friends of Vipin Mali told the complainant that Vipin Mali has taken away his daughter. Thereafter, he met with the father and brother of Vipin Mali, they assured that his daughter would be brought back within two days. On 18.11.2018, when the complainant went to the house of Vipin Mali to enquire about his daughter, then the father of the Vipin Mali abused him and threatened of dire consequences.
3. After investigation, the revisionist and four other accused persons were charge-sheeted. The Court concerned took cognizance of the matter. The revisionist claimed juvenility and was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur vide order dated 18.04.2019. Thereafter, the revisionist/juvenile moved bail application before the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur that was rejected vide order dated 09.05.2019. Against that order an appeal was preferred under Section 101 of the Act of 2015 and that appeal too was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 30.05.2019. Being aggrieved with the said order/judgment, the revisionist/juvenile preferred the present revision.
4. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State respondent. None turned up on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 despite of service of notice.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist/juvenile submitted that revisionist is in Juvenile Home since 14.02.2019. He was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur vide order dated 18.04.2019. The age of the revisionist was found 12 years 11 months and 5 days 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. He further submitted that the victim lived with the revisionist about three months, which shows that victim was a consenting party. Apart from it, according to provisions of Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015, the juvenile in conflict with law can be sent to special home for a period not exceeding three years. In the present matter, even if it is presumed that juvenile has committed a crime, he cannot be kept in protection home for more than three years. The revisionist/juvenile already has spent about 2-1/2 years in judicial cust
