The Allahabad High Court has once again said that the identity of the juvenile accused should not be made public. The court directed its registry department to remove the identity of the juvenile accused in the present case from all records.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori passed this order while hearing a Criminal Revision filed by Juvenile through his father.
The Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 102 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the judgment dated April 2, 2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge POCSO Act, Baghpat, in Criminal Appeal, whereby the appellate court has rejected the Criminal appeal and affirmed the order dated February 24, 2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Baghpat. The Juvenile Justice Board has rejected the bail application of the revisionist, which has been filed by his natural guardian/father, under Section 12 of “JJ Act, 2015”, in Misc Case arising out of Case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code Police Station- Baraut, District- Baghpat.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 2.4.2021 and 24.2.2021 passed by the Appellate Court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board, the revisionist through his father has preferred the instant criminal revision before the Court.
Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist was 15 years 6 months 18 days old at the time of the incident as per the High School Certificate. The Juvenile Justice Board has declared the revisionist as juvenile order dated 17.2.2021 and no proceeding is pending against the order. It has been further submitted that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the case.
Also read: Delhi govt vs L-G: Supreme Court adjourns hearing to April 6
It is further submitted that the revisionist is not named in the first information report, and the role of exhortation has been assigned to the revisionist by the eye witness Govind, during the investigation. As per FIR dated 14.2.2020, on 14.2.2020 Gulveer, aged about 35 years, nephew of the first informant, was standing along with his elder brother Amit and cousin Govinda near a vehicle within the premises of the college. At the same time, Anshul Pawar and two unknown persons came after parking their motorcycle near the gate of the college. After calling Gulveer towards the gate, one of them took out a pistol and shot Gulveer at 12:45 P.M.
The bullet hit his chest and he fell. After being shot, all three fled towards Chhaprauli on a motorcycle. Amit and other persons took the injured to Baraut Hospital. He was referred to Meerut thereby and died en-route to the Hospital.
It is also submitted that the finding recorded by the court below is against the social information report and is based on surmises and conjectures.
Counsel for the revisionist said that there is no evidence to show that if the revisionist is released on bail, his 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. No such findings were recorded as to how he will come in contact with known criminals and how he will be exposed to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The revisionist has been in protective custody in an observation home since 15.2.2020.
Also read: Umar Khalid UAPA case: Delhi court reserves verdict, order on March 14
Counsel for the revisionist further said that the revisionist has no criminal antecedent to his credit except the case and is not a previous convict nor is he associated with any kind of antisocial or criminal activities. There is no report regarding any previous criminal antecedents of the family of the revisionist. The natural guardian / father of the revisionist has given an undertaking that if the revisionist is released on bail, he will keep him in his custody and look after him properly and has assured on behalf of the juvenile that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make the juvenile available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit.
Additional Government Advocate defended the order passed by the Appellate Court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board and contended that the revisionist had committed a heinous crime. Considering the gravity of the offence, the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.
The Court noted that,
The Juvenile Justice Board declared the revisionist as juvenile order dated 17.2.2021 after conducting an inquiry on the basis of a High School certificate of the revisionist, wherein his date of birth is 18.7.2004 and held that he was 15 years 6 months 18 days old at the time of the incident.
The Social Information Report (SIR), demonstrates that the revisionist is studying in Class XIth and his younger sister aged about 13 years and brother aged about 11 years are studying in class 9th and 8th respectively. The qualification of his father is intermediate and the mother is in high school. His father is a farmer and mother is a housewife; relations among the family members are cordial; parents of the juvenile have no criminal antecedent. The SIR further noted that the discipline in the house of the juvenile is moderate. Lack of parental control over the juvenile was found.
Also read: Sherwood College: Between two dioceses, a church, and a suspended principal
First Information Report dated 14.2.2020 has been lodged against the co-accused Anshul and two unknown persons stating that Gulveer aged about 35 years, nephew (Banja) of the first informant was standing with his elder brother Amit and cousin Govinda near a vehicle in the premises of the college. At the same time, Anshul Pawar and two unknown persons came after parking their motorcycle near the gate of the college. After calling Gulveer towards the gate, one of them took out a pistol and shot Gulveer at 12:45 P.M. The bullet hit his chest and he fell. After being shot, all three fled towards Chhaprauli on a motorcycle. Amit and other persons took the injured to Baraut Hospital. He was referred to Meerut, where he died en-route to the Hospital. During the investigation, the name of the revisionist and another co-accused Sagar surfaced on the basis of the statement of the eye-witness Govind. The revisionist has assigned the role of exhortation.
“In view of the above foregoing discussion, I am not satisfied with the reasoning and conclusion of the Appellate Court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board in the impugned judgment and order. The Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the mandatory provisions of Section 12 of “JJ Act, 2015″ as well as other provisions in relation to juveniles and have declined to grant bail merely on the basis of unfounded apprehension. In the absence of any material or evidence of reasonable grounds, it cannot be said that his release would defeat the ends of justice and have failed to give reasons on three contingencies for declining the bail to the revisionist. The findings recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court are based on the heinousness of the offence, therefore, the order dated 24.2.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and judgment dated 2.4.2021 passed by the Appellate Court are not sustainable. Hence, the above-mentioned orders are set aside,” the Court said while allowing the criminal revision.
Let the revisionist who is in observation home since 15.2.2020 be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian/father, in Case under Sections 302 of I.P.C, Police Station- Baraut, District- Baghpat after furnishing a personal bond on his father (Rajendra) with two sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Bagpat, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Natural guardian/father 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 father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.
Also Read: Umar Khalid UAPA case: Delhi court reserves verdict, order on March 14
(ii) Natural guardian/father 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 natural guardian/father will report to the Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month commencing with the fourth Monday of February 2022, and if during any calendar month the first Monday falls on a holiday, then on the following working day.
(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, Gorakhpur, on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.
“Before imparting the judgment, it is necessary to point out that the identity of the juvenile in the matter has been disclosed in the impugned judgment and order which violates the right to privacy and confidentiality of the juvenile and against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shilpa Mittal v. NCT Delhi, (2020) 2 SCC 787 wherein, it was held that the identity of the juvenile shall not be disclosed.
Also read: Poll freebies: Supreme Court dismisses plea, says it’s not a PIL, warns of costs
The revision has been filed by the revisionist through his natural guardian/father. The memo of parties discloses the name of the juvenile. The Registry is directed to conceal the names of the juvenile from the cause list as well as the record of this case so that the names and identities are not disclosed as directed by the Supreme Court in Shilpa Mittal (supra),” the order reads.