Court No. - 17 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 503 of 2009 Petitioner :- Ram Dheeraj @ Dheeraj Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Lakshamn Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ashok Srivastava,J.
This revision has been filed by the revisionist under the provisions of Section
53 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ( for
the sake of convenience hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ ) feeling aggrieved by
the orders dated 17.8.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Faizabad in
Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2009 and dated 21.7.2009 passed by Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Nyay Parishad, Faizabad in Case Crime No. 96/2009
under Sections 363/366/376 I.P.C., Police Station Tarun, district Faizabad.
An F.I.R. was lodged by one Hari Karan Verma against 5 persons including
the revisionist on 31.1.2009. In the F.I.R. the complainant has said that Km.
Preeti Verma who is the daughter of the complainant was enticed away out of
his lawful guardianship on 24.1.2009 at about 9.30 A.M. from Fakharpur, P.S.
Tarun, district Faizabad. During the course of investigation, the girl was
recovered. She was medically examined on 4.3.2009 and the Chief Medical
Officer, Faizabad was of the opinion that on the date of her medical
examination, the prosecutrix Preeti Verma was about 16-17 years of age. The
prosecutrix was produced before the Magistrate for recording her statement
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She stated on oath before the Magistrate that her
age was about 18 years and that on 24.1.2009 she went to Amaganj on her
own where incidently revisionist met her at the Bus Station and therefrom she
went to Delhi alongwith him and remained there for 15 – 20 days. She has
also said that her parents were planning to get her married to some one whom
she did not want to marry and, therefore, she had gone to Delhi on her own
alongwith the revisionist. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded
probably in the first week of March, 2009.
The revisionist was arrested by the police in pursuance of the F.I.R. lodged
against him. Upon an application moved before the Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad, the learned Magistrate vide his order dated
25.6.2009 held the revisionist a juvenile in conflict with law. Thereafter an
application before the Board was moved on behalf of the revisionist with the
prayer that he should be granted bail and he should be given to the custody of
his mother as he was a minor on the date of alleged offence.
After hearing both the parties, the learned Principal Magistrate vide his order
dated 21.7.2009 (impugned in this revision) rejected the application and the
revisionist was left to the custody of Special Home. Feeling aggrieved by this
order, an appeal was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Faizabad.
The learned Sessions Judge, Faizabad after hearing the parties dismissed the
appeal vide his order dated 17.8.2009 ( also impugned in this revision).
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
This revision has been opposed by learned State Counsel.
Sub Section 1 of Section 12 of the Act deals with the bail of a juvenile which
is as follows :
“12. Bail of Juvenile. – (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-
bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears
or is 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, be released on bail with or without
surety [or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the
care of any fit institution or fit person] but he 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.”
Section 53 of the Act deals with the power of revision to the High Court by
the Legislature which is as follows :
“53. Revision.- The High Court may, at any time, either of its own motion or
on an application received in this behalf, call for the record of any proceeding
in which any competent authority or Court of Session has passed an order for
the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such order
and may pass such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit;
Provided that the High Court shall not pass an order under this section
prejudicial to any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of
being heard.”
From the perusal of the orders impugned it is apparent that both the orders
have been passed in a mechanical manner. Both, the learned Principal
Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge, have failed to touch the merit of
the case. The girl was recovered by the police and her statement under Section
164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Magistrate in which she has not stated
anything which may indicate that she was subjected to trauma of rape by the
revisionist. Despite this fact only on the basis of her statement under Section
161 Cr.P.C., the revisionist has been detained under Section 376 I.P.C. also.
Why the two courts below did not give any importance to the statement of the
prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is altogether unexplained and the
learned A.G.A. has also failed to explain the circumstances in which her
testimony on oath before the Magistrate was not given due importance by the
courts below. From the examination of the order passed by learned Principal
Magistrate, it is evident that he is totally accepted what the District Probation
Officer has mentioned in his report. There is nothing in both the impugned
orders which may indicate that the version of the revisionist was given any
importance what to talk of a due importance.
Keeping in view the above discussion, I am of the view that both the orders
are not sustainable in the eyes of law and both should be quashed.
It also appears necessary that the revisionist should be enlarged on bail under
the provisions of 12(1) of the Act.
The revision is allowed. Both the orders impugned in this revision are
quashed and set aside. The revisionist is admitted to bail in Case Crime No.
96/2009, under Section 363/366/376 I.P.C., Police Station Tarun, district
Faizabad subject to his furnishing adequate bonds to the satisfaction of the
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad.
Order Date :- 12.1.2010
S.B.