Radhika (Juvenile) Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2020)

Radhika (Juvenile) Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2020)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision finally disposed of with the observation that the juvenile may move a fresh bail application before the Juvenile Justice Board or the Children Court in the changed circumstances; no other relief granted.

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the changed circumstance that the juvenile's parents (co-accused in the same case) have since been released on bail and are capable of giving her guardianship and welfare, she may pursue bail afresh despite its rejection by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court.

Court's answer

The orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court rejecting bail were well within their jurisdiction, since the bail application had been moved by a brother-in-law who was neither a natural guardian nor capable of looking after the juvenile's welfare, her parents and brother being in jail in the same case crime number.

Ratio / Principle

The release of the parents on bail in the same case crime number is a changed circumstance, not existing when the impugned orders were passed, which permits the applicant-juvenile to move a fresh bail application before the Juvenile Justice Board or the Children Court, to be decided in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision under S. 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 filed by Radhika, a juvenile in conflict with law (accused, with her parents and brother, in Case Crime No. 223 of 2019, u/s 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Chaubiya, District Etawah), through her father and natural guardian Ramratan, against rejection of her bail application by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court (Sessions Judge). Held: both courts below acted well within jurisdiction, as bail had been sought through a brother-in-law and not a natural guardian, the parents and brother being in jail in the same case. However, the parents having since been granted bail and being capable of providing guardianship and welfare constitutes a changed circumstance entitling the juvenile to move a fresh bail application before the Juvenile Justice Board or the Children Court, to be decided in accordance with law. Revision finally disposed of with this observation (Order dated 29.1.2020, Ram Krishna Gautam, J.).

Court No. - 74

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4213 of 2019

Revisionist :- Radhika (Juvenile) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Gaurav Tripathi,Syed Imran Ibrahim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Mishra

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

This criminal revision u/s 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been filed by Radhika (Juvenile) through natural guardian Ramratan i.e. father of Radhika against order of Juvenile Justice Board as well as of the appellate court, whereby application for bail has been rejected by Juvenile Justice Board as well as Appellate Court.

Learned counsel for revisionist argued that the only ground on which bail application was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board was that there was no natural guardian to keep welfare of the juvenile applicant. This application was moved by some brother-in-law, whereas brother, mother and father of juvenile were in jail in same case crime number and it was held that the applicant was a juvenile offender. This was challenged before the appellate court of Sessions Judge, wherein the appeal was rejected. Presently, Ramratan and mother of applicant have been granted bail and they are in a position to look after welfare of the juvenile offender, who is their daughter and a juvenile in conflict with law. Hence both of courts below committed error in passing the impugned orders. Hence this revision.

Learned counsel for other side as well as learned AGA have vehemently opposed this revision with this contention that the impugned orders were well within jurisdiction of the Juvenile Justice Board as well as Appellate Court with no apparent error on the face of record.

Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through the materials placed on record, it is apparent that the juvenile offender Radhika is an accused in Case Crime No. 223 of 2019, u/s 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Chaubiya, District Etawah. She along with her parents and brother was accused in above case crime number. She has been held to be a minor and a juvenile in conflict with law. Bail application was moved by some brother-in-law of applicant i.e. neither a natural guardian nor a person to be capable to look after welfare of juvenile in conflict with law. Both of courts below rejected bail application on the pretext that applicant - juvenile was with no natural guardian or near relative to look after her welfare and give

guardianship in case of her release on bail, because they are in jail in the same case crime number. Hence impugned order of trial court as well as of appellate court was well in accordance with jurisdiction vested in them.

The changed circumstance that parents are on bail in that very case crime number and they are capable to give guardianship and welfare of juvenile offender is a situation, which was not there, while passing both of impugned orders and this changed circumstance permits the applicant-juvenile to move a fresh bail application in the changed circumstance before the Juvenile Justice Board or the Children Court, as the case may be, and it shall be decided in accordance with law.

Accordingly, this revision is being finally disposed of with above observation.

Order Date :- 29.1.2020

Pcl