A criminal revision challenging bail refusal and affirmance of juvenile detention orders was dismissed. The High Court noted the juvenile was below 16 but lost interest due to no probability of current detention and no representation in court. The revision was disposed of on record examination.
驳回的，未裁定释放保释或可受理案件；维持下级法院关于拒绝保释和维持拘留的命令。
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 91
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1357 of 2020
Revisionist :- Sanjay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pushpendra Singh,Wahid Jamal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Subhash Chand
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
None responds for the revisionist and for the respondent no.2informant when the case is called out. However, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 18.03.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.02 of 2020, whereby the learned appellate court dismissed appeal of the revisionist and declined to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 214 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and thereby affirmed the order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 11.12.2019.
As none is present from either side, hence papers brought on record are perused and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State is heard.
As revealed from perusal of the revision memo the impugned orders have been challenged on the grounds that the mandatory provisions of Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 have been ignored; the report of District Probation Officer contained nothing adverse for release of the juvenile on bail; the juvenile had no criminal history and there was no probability that he might come in contact with any known criminal, or that he may be exposed to any physical, moral or psychological danger in case he is released; the orders have been passed absolutely without any substantive material to draw the conclusions as have been drawn by the courts below; the orders passed are arbitrary in nature and are not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, the orders may be set-aside and the revisionist may be admitted to liberty of bail.
It appears that the revisionist-juvenile was found involved in a Case Crime No. 214 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, in which he was chargesheeted. It is also revealed that in an age determination inquiry conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board, he was found aged below 16 years and was detained in this case on 20.08.2018. Legally a juvenile, who is below 16 years of age, can only be
detained for a maximum period of three years only in case he is convicted. There appears no probability that he is still detained in any protection home and this is precisely the reason, the revisionist has lost interest in this case and he is not appearing.
In this view of the matter, the revision is dismissed .
Order Date :- 14.12.2022 Aditya
Digitally signed by ADITYA KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.12.14 16:53:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders dismissing the bail application violated the mandatory provisions of Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 regarding detention of juveniles.
Whether the non-appearance of the juvenile and loss of interest in the case warrants setting aside the lower court orders.
Whether the detention and bail refusal were arbitrary given the juvenile's age and lack of adverse probation report.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sanjay
State of U.P.
Another
Jyotsna Sharma
Aditya Kushwaha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
