Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 492 (ALL)

DUSHYANT v. STATE OF U. P.

2011-03-01

ASHOK SRIVASTAVA

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Srivastava, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist Sri I.K. Chaturvedi and Smt. Kamla Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. 2. This revision has been filed against the judgment and orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as ‘Board’) and the learned Sessions Judge as the Board had rejected the bail application of the revisionists and the appeal filed against it was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge V where the appeal was transferred for disposal by the learned Sessions Judge. 3. The date of impugned order passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut is 1.9.2010 and it was passed in Case Crime No. 559 of 2009 under Sections 376/323 I.P.C., P.S. Sardhana, District Meerut. The judgment and order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Meerut was passed on 23.10.210 in Criminal Appeal No. 311 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 2010. 4. The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged against both the revisionists under Sections 323/376 I.P.C. Both the revisionists are real brothers. They have been declared juvenile by the Board and the decision of the Board has been confirmed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge. However, a revision is pending against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge before this Court but no stay has been granted in favour of the complainant of the case. Thus, at present, the admitted position is that both the revisionists are juvenile. 5. It has been argued from the side of the revisionists that the learned Board and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge have committed gross illegality in refusing the bail to the revisionists as both have given undue importance to the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the them. A number of rulings have been filed from both the sides. 6. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) deals with the bails of a juvenile. It is the established position of law that while considering the bail application of the juveniles, the gravity of the offence is not to be seen but that does not mean that a juvenile should be released in all the cases only because he was a juvenile on the date of the alleged commission of offence. It is the established position of law that while considering the bail application of the juveniles, the gravity of the offence is not to be seen but that does not mean that a juvenile should be released in all the cases only because he was a juvenile on the date of the alleged commission of offence. The legislature has mentioned in the latter part of sub-section 1 of Section 12 of the Act which says that the juvenile shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release 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. These are the riders which are against the bail to the juveniles but at the same time they are for protection of the juveniles and also for the society at large. 7. Section 13 (b) of the Act says that where a juvenile is arrested, the officer-in-charge of the police station shall inform the probation officer of such arrest to enable him (Probation Officer) to obtain information regarding the antecedents and family backgrounds of the juvenile and other material circumstances likely to be of assistance to the Board for making inquiry. 8. Section 14 of the Act deals with inquiry of Board regarding juveniles. In this regard Rule 51 of the Uttar Pradesh Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2004 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’) has got its own importance. It casts a duty upon the Probation Officer that he shall enquire into the antecedents and family history of the juvenile or the child and such other material circumstances, as may be necessary, and thereafter he will submit a report either to the investigator or to the Board in prescribed Form No. VIII. 9. The Act has been enacted for the benefit of a juvenile. Latter part of Section 12 of the act, is also for his benefit because he should not be allowed to be exposed to moral, physical and psychological dangers if he is allowed to remain outside the protective home. At the same time, the interest of justice is also to be taken into consideration. 10. In the instant case I have perused the report submitted by the District Probation Officer regarding both the revisionists. At the same time, the interest of justice is also to be taken into consideration. 10. In the instant case I have perused the report submitted by the District Probation Officer regarding both the revisionists. It is evident that it has been submitted to the Board in a highly cursory, reckless and negligent manner. It clearly shows that the Probation Officer concerned has definitely not followed the requirements as contained in Rule 51 of the Rules. It is a bit surprising that the Board as well as the learned Addl. Sessions Judge could not detect the short comings appearing in the report of the Probation Officer. 11. In the instant case, it appears reasonable that the matter should be remanded back to the learned Board to dispose of the bail application afresh of both the revisionists. Before hearing the bail application, the learned Board shall call for a detailed, clear and speaking report from the District Probation Officer who will submit the same to the Board after making due inquiry about the revisionists as is the intention of Rule 51 of the Rules. Till the bail applications of the revisionists are disposed of, they shall be kept in the Protective Home and their further detention or release shall be in accordance with the orders passed by the Board or by the superior Courts. I have been informed that the revisionists are in Protective Home since last more than a year. Therefore, it is directed that District Probation Officer concerned shall submit his detailed report to the Board within a period of 7 days from the date he receives a direction in this regard from the Board. The Board shall dispose of the bail application within 15 days after receiving the report by the Probation Officer. With the above observations, the revision is finally disposed of. The orders impugned herein are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Board to proceed further in accordance with the directions given by this Court in this order above. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Sessions Judge concerned for its onward transmission to the Board. Copy of this order shall also be sent for guidance to the District Probation Officer concerned through the learned Board. —————