Allowed

Jai Tiwari @ Yash @ Mili v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2019CRLR/64/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the court allowed the petition of a juvenile revisionist to grant bail. The court held that no grounds under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act existed to justify the rejection of bail by lower courts. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the juvenile was directed to be released on bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders rejecting bail were set aside. The juvenile revisionist was released on bail in the custody of his mother with a personal bond and sureties.

Jai Tiwari @ Yash @ Mili Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 64 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Jai Tiwari @ Yash @ Mili Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd. Ashraf Abbasi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Record reveals that bail of juvenile-revisionist involved in Case Crime No.31 of 2017, under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Armapur, District Kanpur Nagar has been rejected by Juvenile Justice Board, vide order dated 03.10.2018.

¶7

Appeal there-against has also been dismissed vide judgement and order dated 21.11.2018 passed by 8th Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.186 of 2018.

¶8

Both the orders of Courts below are impugned in the present criminal revision.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that revisionist has been falsely been implicated in the present case. No offence against him is made out. He further submits that the present prosecution has been instituted against him with a malafide intention for the purpose of harassment and there is no direct evidence against the revisionist. He further submits that co-accused Smt. Shulabh Tiwari has been bailed out on 7.2.2018 by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail

¶10

Application No.4610 of 2018, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure 13 in support of this revision. It is further contended that father of applicant has been assassinated, report has been lodged by the applicant himself against the named accused persons but after investigation the juvenilerevisionist has been charge-sheeted by the Investigating Officer. He is in custody since 17.5.2017. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that he has been declared juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board on 26.9.2018 which has become final as no appeal or revision has been filed against the same.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for State opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the factum of juvenility of the accused-revisionist.

¶12

As per the prosecution, the FIR bearing Case Crime No.31/2017 came to be lodged by Juvenile-revisionist against some accused for assassinating his father but lateron after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted a charge-sheet against the juvenilerevisionist.

¶13

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 provides the provisions as to when bail to a juvenile can be refused.

¶14

"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

¶15

so released if there appears 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.

¶16

(2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board.

¶17

(3) When such person is not released on bail under subsection(1) by the Board, it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order."

¶18

In view of the aforesaid provision, the bail application of the juvenile can be rejected only on the existence of the aforementioned grounds enumerated in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

¶19

Apart from it, in the case of Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. [2010 (71) ACC 209 (Alld)] and Naurang (minor) Vs. State of U.P. [2010 (71) ACC 255 (Alld) , this Court has observed that seriousness of offence is no ground to reject the bail to a juvenile.

¶20

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and rival contention of learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of records available on file, there is no ground under Section 12 of the said Act, so as to justify the rejection of bail of juvenile therefore, the revision deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders are hereby set aside.

¶21

Let juvenile-revisionist- Jai Tiwari involved in Case Crime No.31 of 2017, under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B

¶22

I.P.C., P.S. Armapur, District Kanpur Nagar be released on bail in the custody of his mother on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties before the Juvenile Justice Board concerned to its satisfaction and to file an undertaking that he will look after the juvenile-revisionist carefully and will not let him involve in any criminal case or associate with known or known criminals and shall produce him when and wherever, as directed, before Juvenile Justice Board or any other Court.

¶23

Order Date :- 16.4.2019 Neeraj

Jai Tiwari @ Yash @ Mili v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Tiwari @ Yash @ Mili 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

Anshu Sisaudia Vs State of U.P. and Another

Daroga Bhartiya @ Dheeraj Bhartiya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Chotu @ Dependra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Hare Ram Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Harish Chand Bind Vs State of U.P. and Another