Allowed

Anas Quareshi (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2018CRLR/762/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed revision challenging refusal of bail to a declared minor. Held that gravity of offence is not a ground for bail refusal under the Juvenile Justice Act. Impugned orders set aside; minor released on bail with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders by Chief Magistrate and Sessions Judge set aside. Applicant released on bail with personal bond, two sureties, and conditions regarding evidence tampering and court attendance.

Anas Quareshi (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 762 of 2018

¶3

Revisionist :- Anas Quareshi (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Jawahir Yadav,Inder Pal Singh Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Inder Pal Singh Tomar

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Hearing upon mentioned, notice has been served by learned counsel for the applicant is claimed to have been refused by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. Such notice has been produced by learned counsel for the applicant. It is taken on record.

¶7

The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 3.1.2018 passed by Chief Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad in Case No. 76 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 134 of 2017 (State Vs. Anas), under Sections 452, 302, 504 IPC, Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad as well as impugned judgment and order dated 5.2.2018 passed by Sessions Judge Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2018 (Anas Quareshi Vs. State and others).

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that admittedly the applicant has been declared a juvenile. It is then submitted that the incident at night and there are no eye witnesses. The recovery of knife has also been questioned. Then, it has been submitted that the co-accused Asif has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23358 of 2017 decided on 6.7.2017. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and the DPO report is in his favour. The applicant has remained confined in the child observation home for long since 27.1.2017.

¶9

Further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that it is not in dispute that the applicant is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the 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 applicant.

¶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

¶12

criminal, or

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

In view of the above, the revision is allowed . The order dated 3.1.2018 passed by Chief Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad and order dated 5.2.2018 passed by Sessions Judge Ghaziabad in the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

¶19

Let the applicant Anas Quareshi (Minor) 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 applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;

¶21

(ii) The applicant 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 applicant 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 :- 23.7.2018 Mini

Anas Quareshi (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anas Quareshi (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Amzad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prince @ Rajnish Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prashant Saraswat and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Rakesh Kumar Alias Baswan (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Vats and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.