IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Vikas Budhwar, J.
Vishal Kannaujiya - Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. And Another – Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. - 31 of 2021
Decided On : 02-12-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 15, 39(e)(f), 45, 47, clause (3) of 15, clauses (e) and (f) of 39 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Sections 102 and 12 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 376, 82, 83 and 84 - Prevention of Child from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 - Section 5/6 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 161 and 164 - Reformatory Schools Act, 1897 - Section 8, subsection (1), - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - Sections 29B, 562 and 399 - U.P. First Offenders’ Probation Act, 1938 - Section 15 - Commits rape - Alleged that victim Miss daughter of 17 years old, as whereas revisionist-juvenile being Master son was aged about 16 years, they were found wandering in a suspicious condition unlucky day - Police personnel that they were not willing to go to their respective houses as they wanted to live together. Faced with these circumstances, Sub-Inspector District Gorakhpur made a communication to designated official of Child Welfare Committee, District clearly narrating the fact that juvenile and the victim both of them were not agreeable to go to their respective houses and further despite fact that information was provided to parents of juvenile and victim - sought to be made to them that victim as well as revisionist be taken into the custody of Child Welfare Committee, District Gorakhpur for their upkeep.
Finding of the Court:
Juvenile is in observation home there is nothing on record to show that there is any criminal antecedents either of juvenile or his family and rather admittedly - accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from fundamental postulate in respect of other offences - Grant of bail is general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home is an exception.
Result: Revision succeeds and is allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. This is a revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short the J.J. Act, 2015), instituted against the order dated 26.8.2020 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur in Case Crime no. 09 of 2020 (State Vs. Vishal Kannaujiya), under Section 376 IPC read with Section 5/6 of the Prevention of Child from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, hereinafter referred to as the ‘POCSO Act’, P.S. Khajani, District Gorakhpur as well as the order dated 27.11.2020 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Gorakhpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2020, Vishal Kannaujiya Vs. State of U.P. and others refusing the bail to the revisionist.
2. Brief facts of the case set-forth by the revisionist are that the prosecution has alleged that the victim Miss Neeraj Kannaujiya, daughter of Ram Laut Kannaujiya is 17 years old, as whereas revisionist-juvenile being Master Vishal Kannaujiya son of Rajesh Kannaujiya was aged about 16 years, they were found wandering in a suspicious condition in Kasba Khajani on the unlucky day, i.e., 28.12.2019. On interception, the juvenile as well as the victim Neeraj Kannaujiya apprised the police personnel that they were not willing to go to their respective houses as they wanted to live together. Faced with these circumstances, one Sri Rudra Pratap Singh, Sub-Inspector, P.S. Khajani, District Gorakhpur made a communication to the designated official of Child Welfare Committee, District Gorakhpur clearly narrating the fact that the juvenile and the victim both of them were not agreeable to go to their respective houses and further despite the fact that information was provided to the parents of the juvenile and the victim, none of them approached them to take custody of the juvenile or the victim and thus request was being sought to be made to them that the victim as well as the revisionist be taken into the custody of the Child Welfare Committee, District Gorakhpur for their upkeep, care and betterment.
3. It appears that on the same day, i.e., on 28.12.2019, G.D. entry was also made narrating the facts, which had been communicated on 28.12.2019 by the Sub-Inspector, P.S. Khajani, Gorakhpur to the Child Welfare Committee, Gorakhpur. Thereafter, FIR was lodged by one Sri Krishna Sinha being the member of the Child Welfare Committee, Gorakhpur before the police station Khajani, Gorakhpur dated 16.1.2020 registered as Case Crime no. 0009 of 2020 with an allegation that on 28.12.2019 itself the police officials found the revisionist and the victim together in suspicious condition and further on medical examination, it revealed that UPT was positive depicting that she was pregnant. It was also alleged that the father of the victim had not lodged the FIR because the victim was a minor and that will create negative impact upon the character of the victim. Statement of the complainant being Sri Krishna Sinha, Chairman/Member, Child Welfare Committee, District Gorakhpur was recorded on 17.1.2020 under Section 161 CrPC, wherein the same facts were reiterated, which already found place in the FIR. It has also come on record that despite being request administered to the parents of the victim, as well as the victim for getting her medically examined, she refused for the same. The statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 164 CrPC, a certified copy of the same is at page 70 of the paper book, wherein the victim has deposed that she is of 17 years of age and she is in love with the revisionist for the past three months and she according to her sweet will has married with the revisionist. Consequent to the initiation of the proceedings emanating from the FIR, the revisionist is in observation home since 22.7.2020, and the proceeding has been registered as Case Crime no. 9 of 2020, under Section 37
Sanjay Chaurasiya vs. State of U.P.
Data Ram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another
Point of Law : It transpires that there was nothing to show any material or any substance for believing that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring him into association with any known crim....
The gravity of the offence should not be a hindrance to refuse bail to a delinquent juvenile, but the nature of the crime, conduct of the accused, and the ends of justice should be considered while e....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Juvenile Justice Board must consider the mandatory provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and make an objective assessment based on reason....
The gravity or seriousness of the offence should not be a relevant consideration for refusing bail to a delinquent juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act. The nature of the crime, conduct of the acc....
Point of law: 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 as....
If the juvenile is released on bail, he will be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger and confirmed the order of the Juvenile Justice Board and rejected the appeal of the juvenile.
The gravity of the offence is a relevant consideration for refusing bail to a juvenile, and the best interest of the child, demands of justice, and concerns of the society at large must be considered....
Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law - Section 12(1) of Act reveals that, any person, who is apparently a child, shall be entitled to be released on bail with....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.