Allowed

Hariom (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Anothes

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2020CRLR/1364/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act governs bail for minors; gravity of the offence is irrelevant unless release risks criminal association or moral danger. The High Court set aside lower orders refusing bail and released the juvenile on personal bond plus sureties, mandating strict supervision by the District Probation Officer.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; impugned orders set aside; revisionist released on bail via personal bond with two sureties and strict supervision by District Probation Officer.

Hariom (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Anothes — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 90

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1364 of 2020

¶4

Revisionist :- Hariom (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anothes Counsel for Revisionist :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Vikram Yadav,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

1. List is revised. Despite service of notice on opposite party no.2, none has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 to oppose the present criminal revision.

¶7

2. Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

3. This revision is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.3.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Firozabad, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 601 of 2020 (Hariom Vs. State of U.P.) under Section 53 of the the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 (for short 'the Act') and affirming an order of Juvenile Justice Board, Firozabad dated 4.3.2020 refusing the bail plea of the revisionist in Case Crime No. 538 of 2019, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Sirsaganj, DistrictFirozabad.

¶9

4. The facts of the present case is that the F.I.R. was lodged against two persons. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that some dispute pertaining to property arose between deceased and co-accused Ashish Muni @ Ashish, thereafter, Ashish with knife stabbed the deceased. Maternal brother of co-accused hit the deceased with stone. The revisionist was minor at the time of incident and his age was determined as 13 years 02 months and 29 days by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 1.1.2020. He further submitted that the alleged knife has been recovered from the possession of co-accused Ashish and nothing has been

¶10

¶11

recovered from the revisionist and as per as D.P.O. report revisionist is required supervision of elders. The first informant is not an eye-witness. It appears that there was no motive to kill the deceased and all of sudden relating to property some dispute arose between the deceased and coaccused Ashish and revisionist was there to protect himself threw the stone. He next submitted that appellate court without applying his mind on account of gravity of offence, without considering the report of D.P.O. rejected the appeal of the revisionist. He further submitted that gravity of offence cannot be looked on merit while considering the bail of juvenile. As per the report of District Probation Officer the act, conduct and behaviour of the revisionist and his family members are absolutely normal and the revisionist has no any past criminal antecedent. Relation of the revisionist with the neighbours is normal. In the event of his release on bail there is no likelihood of his going into association with any known and unknown criminals and expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. The revisionist is in observation since 4.11.2019 more than one year has been passed.

¶12

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist/applicant submits that revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in concocted case; revisionist is a student of class IX; On 1.1.2020, the revisionist appeared before the Juvenile Justice Board, Firozabad, where the Board declared revisionist as minor determining his age 13 years 02 months and 29 days, which is less than 18 years on the date of incident (30.9.2019). It is further submitted that revisionist was declared as juvenile in conflict of law on 01.1.2020 but even that both the court below were failed to consider the special provision for bail to juvenile; there are contradiction in the version of the F.I.R. and the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.; the prosecution story does not support the medical report; only gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration for refusing grant of bail to juvenile as has been envisaged in Section 12 of the Act and it has been consistent view of various courts; the Board or the lower appellate court has not given any reason or material on record

¶13

¶14

which shows that release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral physical or psychological danger, that his release would defeat the ends of justice; there is no criminal history of the applicant and there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial; the applicant has remained confined in the child observation home for an unduly long period of time, since 04.11.2019.

¶15

6. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the present criminal revision. It is submitted that the incident reported is true and it is wrong to say that the allegations made against the revisionist/applicant are false, and/are motivated. Also, reliance has been placed on the findings recorded in the bail rejection orders to submit that the instant revision may be dismissed.

¶16

7. It is not in dispute that the revisionist/applicant is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Act. Under Section 12 of the Act, the prayer for bail of a juvenile may 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 would defeat the ends of justice'.

¶17

8. The provisions relating to bail for a juvenile are carried in Section 12 of the Act, which reads as under:

¶18

"(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or 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 person:

¶19

Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision. (2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under subsection (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept

¶20

¶21

only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board.

¶22

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

¶23

(4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail."

¶24

9. The above provisions clearly show that once a person is held to be a juvenile in conflict with law, then Section 12 of the Act would govern the question of grant of bail and the custody of juvenile and it will not be governed by the provisions of the code of the criminal procedure. It is important to note that gravity or seriousness of the offence, should not been taken as an obstacle or hindrance by the Legislature to refuse bail to a delinquent juvenile. No straight jacket formula of inflexible nature can be laid down as it would depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Words "ends of justice' is confined to those facts which show that the grant of bail itself is likely to result in injustice.

¶25

10. The court has 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 the Act. Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail may be refused to a juvenile offender. These are:-

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

11. Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the bail. It is not a relevant factor while considering to grant bail to the juvenile. It has been so held by this Court in the cases of Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB); Abdullah @ Abdul Hassan Vs. State of U.P. and Ohers [2015 (90) ACC 204]; Maroof Vs. State of U.P. and Another [2015 (6) ADJ 203]; Criminal Revision No. 112 of 2015 (Suraj @ Ashok Sukla Thru. Father Mahendra Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and Amit

¶30

¶31

Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 2010(71) ACC 209 decided on 02.07.2015 .

¶32

12. The Act, namely, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 being beneficiary and social reforms oriented legislation, should be given full effect by all concerned whenever matters relating to juvenile comes for consideration before them. There must be any material or evidence reflecting reasonable ground to believe that delinquent juvenile, if released on bail is likely to fall into association with known criminal persons or such liberty may expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or his release would defeat the ends of justice. In absence of such reasonable grounds the bail of juvenile should not be refused. In Sanjay Chaurasia Vs. State of U.P. 2006 Cr.L.J. 2957 it has been observed that:-

¶33

"10. In case of the refusal of the bail, some reasonable grounds for believing above-mentioned exceptions must be brought before the Courts concerned by the prosecution but in the present case, no such ground for believing any of the above-mentioned exceptions has been brought by the prosecution before the Juvenile Justice Board and Appellate Court. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal only on the presumption that due to commission of this offence, the father and other relatives of other kidnapped boy had developed enmity with the revisionist, that is why in case of his release, the physical and mental life of the revisionist will be in danger and his release will defeat the ends of justice but substantial to this presumption no material has been brought before the Appellate Court and the same has not been discussed and only on the basis of the presumption, Juvenile Justice Board has refused the Bail of the revisionist which is in the present case is unjustified and against the spirit of the Act. It appears that the impugned order dated 27.06.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Meerut and order dated 28.05.2005 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board are illegal and set aside."

¶34

13. Learned Magistrate by its order dated 4.3.2020 has rejected the bail of revisionist mentioning that the offence committed by juvenile is heinous and non-bailable in nature.

¶35

14. In the case of A. Juvenile Vs. State of Orissa, 2009 Cr.L.J., 2002 , it has been held that:

¶36

"(6) A close reading of the aforementioned provision shows that it has been mandated upon the Court to release a person who is apparently a juvenile on bail with or without surety, howsoever heinous the crime may be and whatever the legal or other restrictions containing in the Cr.P.C. or any other law may be. The only restriction is that if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that his release is likely to bring him into

¶37

¶38

association with any moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice, he shall not be so released."

¶39

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 2 of the judgment in Kamal Vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 has held thus:

¶40

"2. This is a case in which the appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of the India Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that so far the appellant has undergone imprisonment for about 2 years and four months. The High Court declined to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal before it. We are of the view that the bail should have been granted by the High Court, especially having regard to the fact that the appellant has already served a substantial period of the sentence. In the circumstances, we direct that the bail be granted to the appellant on conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad."

¶41

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph-2 of the judgment in Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10) SCC 463 , has observed as under:-

¶42

"2. The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending. Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year. After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order. It is submitted that the appellants are already in jail for over 3 years and 3 months. There is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High Court. In the aforesaid circumstances the applicants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

¶43

17. Thus, it remains largely undisputed that the applicant was a juvenile on the date of occurrence; does not appear to be prone to criminal proclivity or criminal psychology, in light of the observations of the D.P.O; does not have a criminal history; has been in confinement for an unduly long period of time, in as much as the trial has not concluded

¶44

¶45

within time frame contemplated by the Act. Even otherwise, there does not appear to exist any factor or circumstance mentioned in Section 12 of the Act as may disentitle the applicant to grant of bail, at this stage.

¶46

18. In view of the above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are in conflict with the settled principle in law, for the purpose of grant of bail and are erroneous and contrary to the law laid down by this court. Consequently, those orders cannot be sustained. The order dated 19.3.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Firozabad and order dated 04.03.2019 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Firozabad are hereby set-aside .

¶47

19. In view of the observations made above, the present criminal revision is allowed. Let the revisionist/applicant- Hariom (Minor) involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail through his natural guardian/ father, upon his father furnishing personal bond with two sureties each of like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶48

(i) That the natural guardian will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come 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.

¶49

(ii) The revisionist through his natural guardian will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Wednesday of every calendar month commencing with the first Wednesday of February, 2021 and if during any calendar month the first Wednesday falls on a holiday, then on the next following working day.

¶50

(iii) The District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the revisionist and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Firozabad on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

¶51

(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order

¶52

¶53

downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or the certified copy issued by the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad. (v) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶54

(vi) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶55

20. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the court below is directed to make every possible endeavour to conclude the trial of the aforesaid case within a period of four months from today without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

¶56

Order Date :- 3.12.2020 Vikas

Hariom (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Anothes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariom (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Anothes

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

Kishan Saxena Vs State of U.P.

Faiz @ Faizuddin Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Raj Singh @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Prasad Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Yadav Vs State of U.P.