Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 918 (ALL)

Hansraj Yadav v. State of U. P.

2021-08-19

J.J.MUNIR

body2021
ORDER : This Revision is directed against an order of Mr. Gaurav Kumar Srivastava, the then Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chandauli dated 05.02.2020, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2020, dismissing the appeal and affirming an order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Chandauli, for short “the Board” dated 21.01.2020, refusing bail pending trial to the revisionist in Case Crime No. 222 of 2018, under Sections 489B, 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for short “the Penal Code”, Police Station - Chakia, District - Chandauli. 2. The revisionist was apprehended in connection with the aforesaid crime in a joint operation by the Anti Terrorism Squad and the Station House Officer, Police Station Chakia, District Chandauli, on 17.10.2018 at 03:00 p.m. in the afternoon, while he was proceeding on board a three-wheeler. He was apprehended at the Saidullahpur Trijunction, by the joint police party, acting on a tip off from an informer. He was carrying a blue-coloured bag. The search of the bag, going by prior information, led to recovery of fake Indian currency worth Rs. 3,40,000/-. The First Information Report, for short “FIR” details that the revisionist confessed that he had collected the currency from Farakka, Bihar, travel led to Patna, and thence to Mugalsarai. 3. The revisionist moved the Board for a declaration that he was a child in conflict with law. The Board, after necessary inquiry, declared the revisionist a juvenile vide order dated 14.01.2020, aged about 15 years, one month and eighteen days on the date of occurrence. The revisionist then moved the Board seeking bail. The Board rejected the bail plea vide order dated 21.01.2020. The revisionist appealed the Board's order to the learned Sessions Judge, Chandauli under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2015”. The appeal before the Sessions Judge was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2020. It came up for determination before the learned Sessions Judge, Chandauli, who proceeded to dismiss the same and affirmed the Board. 4. Aggrieved, this Revision has been instituted. 5. Heard Mr. Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of Uttar Pradesh. 6. During the course of hearing, it was strenuously argued by Mr. Srivastava that the juvenile was made a scapegoat. 4. Aggrieved, this Revision has been instituted. 5. Heard Mr. Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of Uttar Pradesh. 6. During the course of hearing, it was strenuously argued by Mr. Srivastava that the juvenile was made a scapegoat. He was apprehended while he was travelling on board train at the Mugalsarai Junction by the Police and was challaned in connection with the present crime. There appeared to be something intriguing about the revisionist's apprehension that was spelt out by the fact that the FIR was registered with a delay of five hours. There was no reason for the FIR to be delayed by five hours in a matter where the first informant was the Station House Officer of the Police Station where report was registered. There is seemingly no explanation for this delay. It is on this account that the revisionist was summoned by the Court. He stated before the Court that he was passing through Mugalsarai Junction on board a train, being a runaway from home. He had left home after being thrashed by his father. Mr. Srivastava insists that it is a case of patent false implication, where someone caught with fake currency has been allowed to go scot-free and instead, the revisionist, an innocent boy, has been framed by the Police. 7. Mr. Tiwari, the learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has stoutly opposed the bail plea. He submits that the revisionist has been apprehended carrying the currency, and there is no reason why the revisionist would be chosen as a target for false implication. Even otherwise, he submits that there is no reason to frame an innocent person in a case of recovery of fake currency. 8. This Court has perused the impugned orders, the material available on record and considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel on both sides. 9. Generally speaking, the revisionist, being a child in conflict with law, who has been found by the Board to be aged 15 years and one month, the universal rule of bail postulated under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 would come to his infallible aid, unless the case fell in one or the other exceptions to the rule postulated under the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Act. Section 12 (1) reads : 12. Section 12 (1) reads : 12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law.— (1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, shall be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person : Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision. 10. It has to be borne in mind that there is substantial recovery of fake currency from the revisionist's possession, which has to be believed at this stage. An offence relating to fake currency, where the revisionist has been challaned under Sections 489B and 489C of the Penal Code, is a very serious offence, affecting the country's economy and national security. It could be a very small tentacle of a hydra-headed monster, involving infiltration of the country's economy with fake currency. Offences relating to currency and coinage have always been regarded to be so serious that these are made punishable at the stage of preparation. In the current scenario, they have assumed alarming dimensions, because these could be connected to further more dreadful crimes of terrorism etc. This Court does not wish to suggest that the revisionist is indeed involved in some heinous offence or even the present crime. Whatever is said here is limited to judge the bail plea. These remarks have been made in the context that the crime of which the revisionist is accused, is far too serious to be passed off for another heinous offence. At the same time, the law relating to bails governing children in conflict with law does envisage bail as a rule. 11. These remarks have been made in the context that the crime of which the revisionist is accused, is far too serious to be passed off for another heinous offence. At the same time, the law relating to bails governing children in conflict with law does envisage bail as a rule. 11. It is strenuously urged on behalf of the revisionist that howsoever serious the gravity of the offence, it is quite irrelevant to judge a juvenile's bail plea. This Court does not think so. The reason is that one of the exceptions to the universal rule of bail for juveniles is the case where grant of bail would lead to ends of justice being defeated. Now, ends of justice being defeated is not a word of art. It postulates an amalgam of the many undesirable consequences that would ensue in case the juvenile, in a given situation were released on bail. It would also include an offence of grave enormity, where release of the juvenile on bail might have adverse impact on the society. 12. There are other exceptions to the rule of bail for a juvenile. One of them is apprehension about the juvenile coming into contact with known criminals. Here, the juvenile being charged with carrying counterfeit currency, it is but logical to assume at this stage that he is in contact with some known criminals. At his age, it is, by no means, possible to infer that he would have printed the currency himself or be the kingpin of a racket involving fake currency. There is every likelihood that he is part of a gang or in contact with some known criminals, who have employed him as a carrier. The fact that he has no criminal history would make him an ideal choice for a hardened criminal, involved in a racket of fake currency. 13. There is one more feature which must not escape mention. The Social Investigation Report, amongst other things, shows that the revisionist is a dropout from school and has discontinued his studies after Class VIII. There is no evidence or material indicating the revisionist's gainful or productive employment in life so far. Though his siblings appear to be better educated, but the typical circumstances in which the revisionist is placed could make him a possible victim of known criminals to hire at the dawn of youth. There is no evidence or material indicating the revisionist's gainful or productive employment in life so far. Though his siblings appear to be better educated, but the typical circumstances in which the revisionist is placed could make him a possible victim of known criminals to hire at the dawn of youth. In these circumstances, if the revisionist were enlarged on bail, the possibility that he would come into contact or resume contact with known criminals cannot be ruled out. 14. Considering the entirety of circumstances, this Court is of opinion that no inference with the orders made by the Courts below is required. 15. In the result, this Revision fails and stands dismissed.