Y Minor v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4867 of 2023 Revisionist :- Y Minor Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashutosh Singh,Neetu Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Birendra Singh Khokher Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the opposite party is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr Birendra Singh Khokher learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist through his mother with a prayer to allow this revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 14.08.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Muzaffar Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2023 as well as order dated

28.06.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffar Nagar. Further prayed to release the revisionist on bail in Case Crime No. 51 of 2022 under Section 302, 504, 506 and 34 I.P.C., Police Station Sikheda, District Muzaffar Nagar. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the delinquent was aged about 17 years at the time of alleged incident. It is further submitted that as per allegation in F.I.R. the revisionist committed murder of the deceased with other four co-accused persons. In the beginning of the investigation role of firing was assigned to the present revisionist but later on, on the basis of Mazeed statement of the informant the role of firing was assigned to co-accused Udham Singh and present revisionist was said to have caught hold the deceased with other co-accused persons. It is also submitted that other co-accused persons Jawahar Singh and Udham Singh have already been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36240 of 2022 vide order dated 08.09.2022 and in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1350 of 2023 vide order dated 20.02.2023 The role of the revisionist cannot be said to be more than the other co-accused persons. It is further submitted that there is nothing adverse against the interest of the delinquent in the report submitted by D.P.O. It is further submitted that the provisions as contained u/s 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act had not been considered by the Juvenile Justice Board even the report submitted by Probation Officer was also not considered. The appellate court has also not considered all these facts but rejected the appeal without applying its judicial mind and considering the law as contained u/s 12 of the aforesaid Act. He is in Child Care Home since 20.04.2022 i.e. more than one and a half year and his psychology is being affected adversely, therefore, requested to set aside orders passed by the J.J. Board as well as appellate court and allow the criminal revision. Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case the I.O. by writing the statement of the informant again shifted the role of firing from present revisionist to co-accused Udham Singh which cannot be said to be correct but this was error on the part of I.O. which cannot be give benefit to the revisionist at this stage. He also contended that a Tamancha was also recovered. It is also contended that his father is also a criminal and in case, he is released on bail he will come in association with hardened criminals. In this regard, the orders passed by the learned J.J. Board as well as learned appellate court cannot be said to be unlawful, therefore, he cannot be said to be entitled for bail and revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A. for the State, perusal of record, the provisions as contained u/s 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, the report submitted by the Probation Officer, it appears that Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court had not considered the relevant provisions and the material on record in well manner but passed the orders without applying their judicial mind. In this way, there appears ground in this revision and the orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the orders passed by Juvenile Justice Board dated

28.06.2023 and the appellate court dated 14.08.2023 are, hereby, set aside and present criminal revision is hereby, allowed. It is directed that delinquent/applicant be released on bail on executing person bond by the revisionist (mother of the delinquent) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board concerned on following conditions :-

(i) The revisionist/ mother will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the revisionist will not be permitted to go into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical, or psychological danger and further that the mother will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.

(ii) The revisionist/ mother will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juvenile will pursue his study at the appropriate level which he would be encouraged to do besides other constructive activities and not be allowed to waste his time in unproductive and excessive recreational pursuits.

(iii) Juvenile and the revisionist/ mother will report to the Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month.

(iv) The Probation Officer will keep a strict vigil on the activities of the juvenile and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board concerned on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine. Order Date :- 6.11.2023 Suraj Srivastav High Court of Judicature at Allahabad