Allowed

Nishakant @ Ratnesh (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2018CRLR/1272/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court examined the denial of bail to a juvenile accused of rape and murder. The court held that gravity of offence is not a ground under the Juvenile Justice Act and set aside the detention order.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 29.03.2018 set aside. Applicant released on bail with two sureties on conditions preventing witness tampering and ensuring court attendance.

Nishakant @ Ratnesh (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1272 of 2018 Revisionist :- Nishakant @ Ratnesh (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Ambreesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.

¶4

The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated 29.03.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Auraiya, in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2018, whereby confirming the judgement and order dated 12.01.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Auraiya, in Criminal Case No. 20 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 452 of 2015, under Sections 376-D, 302 IPC, Police Station Dibiyapur, District Auraiya.

¶5

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist submits that undisputedely the revisionist is juvenile and he is in confinement since 25.04.2017. It is then submitted that the only alleged eye witnesses Saurabh and Prem Narayan had falsified the prosecution case at the stage of original investigation by denying the factum of having seen by the revisionist, being involved in the commission of offence of either rape or murder. It is then stated that during further investigation all that was stated by the alleged eye witnesses was the fact of their having seen the revisionist at the place where the body of the deceased was found hanging from a tree and that they ran away upon the appearance of the eye witnesses. It is further stated that the postmortem report does not corroborate the offences alleged against the revisionist and that there is no other credible evidence to implicate the revisionist with the heinous crime of rape and murder.

¶6

It is then submitted that the revisionist who is Juvenile is in confinement since 25.04.2017.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist has already been declared juvenile.

¶8

The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that it is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the

¶9

provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (here-in-after referred to as 'Juvenile Justice Act'). It has been submitted that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act prayer for bail of a juvenile can be rejected 'if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release wound defeat the ends of justice'. It has been submitted that no such grounds are available on record to deny bail to the revisionist.

¶10

This court is to see whether the opinion of the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and orders are in consonance with the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile. They are:-

¶11

(1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or

¶12

(2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or

¶13

(3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice?

¶14

Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail in Section 12 of the Act.

¶15

It has been submitted that gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration for refusing grant of bail to the juvenile as has been held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB) and it has been a consistent view of various courts. It has been submitted that there exist no material to justify rejection of bail on the grounds envisaged by Section 12 of the Act.

¶16

Learned AGA has opposed prayer for bail but he could not demonstrate from the record that there existed any of the grounds on which bail application of a juvenile could be rejected keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

¶17

In view of the above, the revision is allowed . The order dated 29.03.2018

¶18

in the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

¶19

Let the applicant Nishakant @ Ratnesh involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶20

(i) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;

¶21

(ii) The revisionist through guardian shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;

¶22

(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

Order Date :- 12.7.2018 VKG

Nishakant @ Ratnesh (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishakant @ Ratnesh (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Anshudhar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Gaurav Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maqsood Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpendra Kumar Singh and another Vs State of U.P. and another