IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Gajendra Kumar, J.
Deepak @ Bhoora - Revisionist
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others - Opposite Party
Criminal Revision No. 858 of 2022
Decided On : 23-09-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376-D, 354, 506, 452, 306, 307 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 161 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 4 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 102 – Criminal revision – Criminal appeal – Gang rape – Punishment for criminal intimidation – House-trespass after preparation for hurt – Abetment of suicide – Attempt to murder – Examination of witnesses by police – It appears that name of revisionist-juvenile has been disclosed in memo of revision – Fault from side of revisionist escaped detection by Registry – Concerned Officer of Registry is directed to delete name of revisionist-minor from title of revision as fed and shown in data on website and represent him as "Minor 'X' Through His Natural Guardian Father – Held, Court wishes to say is that for present, Court seized as it is of the bail matter, there is a reasonable assurance about the charge being prima facie credible – It is true that merits of case or prima facie tenability of charge, like an adult, is not entirely decisive to fate of bail plea – At same time, it is not altogether irrelevant – case in hand shows that the revisionist by his action, if true, has put society and its surroundings on alarm – His actions have led to a situation, where prima facie no child of tender years, and more than that parents or the guardians of a young child, would feel safe during their daily routine, when there is nothing otherwise to call extra caution – In opinion of this Court, it is a case where release of child in conflict with law would lead to ends of justice being defeated – Learned appellate Court and Board have given concurrent view and have found him not at all entitled to bail and have given observation that an effective protection and supervision is needed – Such an observation for declining bail cannot be faulted in totality of circumstances of matter – Court of view that it is not a fit case to grant bail to present revisionist – Revision dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Gajendra Kumar, J.
1. It appears that name of the revisionist-juvenile has been disclosed in the memo of revision. This fault from the side of revisionist escaped detection by the Registry. The concerned Officer of the Registry is directed to delete the name of the revisionist-minor from the title of the revision as fed and shown in the data on website and represent him as "Minor 'X' Through His Natural Guardian Father Arjun Singh".
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the private respondents and perused the record.
3. This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, has been filed on behalf of the minor 'X' through his natural guardian/father Arjun Singh s/o Mohan Singh, R/o Village-Gokulpur, Police Station Nidhauli Kalan, District Etah with the prayer to admit the minor on bail alongwith the prayer to set aside the order dated 15.11.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Etah and order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Etah in Criminal Appeal No.48 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No.26 of 2019 under Section 376-D, 354, 506, 452, 306 IPC and 4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Nidhauli Kalan, District- Etah by which the criminal appeal No.48 of 2021 was rejected.
4. As per the prosecution version, instant FIR has been lodged by Veerpal Singh, father of the victim, alleging therein that his minor daughter/victim was being teased and molested since after Diwali festival by the juvenile son of Arjun along with his cousin brother Pushpendra and Manpal. and the complaint's family along with victim were also terrorised and threatened with dire consequences by them. In the evening of 23.02.2021, Juvenile and Manpal had caught the victim near Marghat with bad intention when they (accused) were returning back from the house of the victim after taking ' Aata'. On hearing the scream of the victim, some people came on the spot, thereafter she save herself. Thereafter, when victim came to her house and told about the said incident to her mother, and on getting information about the above incident, the complainant's wife scolded the juvenile and Manpal for which, the victim was threatened and scared in the said night by the juvenile and other accused persons. On 24.02.2021, at about 05:00 am, when victim was making tea in her house, finding her alone, the juvenile trespassed into the house and caught her; when she tried to save her, then the juvenile poured diesel upon her and set her on fire with the intention to kill her. Thereafter, victim in burnt condition was brought by Munnesh R/O Fatehpur in Bolero vehicle to Etah Distt. Hospital, Whereafter first aid, she was sent in an ambulance to Aligarh Medical College. According to the complainant, victim has been gangraped by the accused-persons, due to which she was pregnant and after treatment of some days, ultimately she died on 15.03.2021. Hence, F.I.R regarding this incident was lodged on 03.03.2021 at about 14:40 hours being case crime no. 26/2021 u/s 376-D, 354, 506, 452, 307 I.P.C and 4 POSCO act, at P.S Nidhauli Kalan, Distt. Etah against the Juvenile, Pushpendra and Manpal, in which after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against the juvenile and Malla @ Manpal u/s 376-D, 354, 506, 306 I.P.C and 4 POSCO Act, on which cognizance has been taken by the Court of Special Judge (Exclusive POSCO Act), Etah on 06.05.2021.
5. During the proceedings before the Juvenile Justice Board, the revisionist was found to be the age of 16 years, 10 months and 13 days on the date of the incident and was declared juvenile vide order dated 04.10.2021. A bail application through guardian was moved before the Juvenile Justice Board, Etah, but the same was rejected. Thereafter, a criminal appeal No.48/2021 was preferred by the father and guardian of the juvenile and the same was also dismissed vide ord
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 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....
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....
The gravity of the offense should be considered when judging the entitlement of a juvenile to bail, and the court should balance the interests of the child and the society. The principle of best inte....
Offence of Murder - Bail of juvenile - Not granted - Revisionist disentitled to bail under all three exceptions to rule, envisaged under proviso to Section 12(1) of Act of 2015.
Juvenile disentitled to bail on account of his case falling under each of the three exceptions enumerated in the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 12, for which no reason has been indicated.
Point of Law - It is necessary to point out that identity of the juvenile in the present matter has been disclosed in impugned judgment and order which violates the right to privacy and confidentiali....
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.