Allowed

Juvenile X (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2022CRLR/1429/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a criminal revision challenging bail rejection for a juvenile accused of attempted murder. The High Court quashed impugned orders by the Juvenile Justice Board and Special Judge, holding that lower courts erroneously invoked exceptions against bail without sufficient material. Custody was remanded to family with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of JJB and Special Judge (POCSO) set-aside; juvenile released on bail by father furnishing bond and sureties with court conditions.

Juvenile X (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1429 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Juvenile X (Minor) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Inder Pal Singh Tomar,Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhilasha Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. None responded on behalf of the respondent no.2 despite service of notice.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the order dated 08.02.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad and the order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2022 in which the order of the Juvenile Justice Board was affirmed and bail to the juvenile was declined in a matter arising out of Case Crime No.1097 of 2021, under sections 307, 504 I.P.C., Police StationMurad Nagar, District- Ghaziabad.

¶8

As per the allegations in the F.I.R. lodged by father of the injured, four named persons, i.e., Salman, Haseen, Waseem and the minor-revisionist, all sons of Karam Ilahi, were present at the place of occurrence carrying certain arms. They attacked Anas on 12.11.2021 at about 12:00 in the afternoon with the common intention. When Anas protested, then on exhortation of co-accused Waseem and Haseen, Salman attacked him with a knife. The injured was taken to the hospital from where he was referred to Ghaziabad for higher medical assistance.

¶9

During the investigation, the complainant reiterated the version as given in the F.I.R. However, later on, the Investigating Officer collected the evidence depicting only the juvenile responsible for the incident. One of the piece of evidence collected to show his complicity is a confessional statement of the juvenile. Admittedly, the charge-sheet has been filed only against the juvenile and rest of the three named accused persons Salman, Haseen and Waseem have not been charge-sheeted. My attention has been drawn to the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. of witness Nadeem, wherein he stated that it was only the juvenile, who attacked the injured

¶10

and rest of the three persons, namely, Salman, Haseen and Waseem were named in the F.I.R. to put pressure on the defence side over an issue of transaction of money. On the basis of the statement of the witnesses, it is alleged that the juvenile has been falsely implicated as both the sides had a dispute over transaction of money. It is contended that the injured sustained only one stab wound and that in view of the allegations in the F.I.R., he cannot be held solely responsible for the act as the evidence collected is quite suspicious in nature and is unreliable. This is not disputed that the revisionist is detained in custody since last one year and that there has been previous enmity between the two sides.

¶11

I went through the social investigation report, which says that the juvenile had no criminal tendencies and that he has no criminal history. The socio-economic condition of the family was satisfactory. The District Probation Officer has, in the concluding para of his report, touched the background of the incident and said that both the sides were well acquainted with each other and the genesis of the dispute lied on a tiff as to place of doing business of selling fruits. In my view there has not been anything adverse in the social investigation report so as to prompt the courts below to decline the bail to the juvenile.

¶12

I went through the impugned orders; it appears that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court brought the matter within the exceptions as provided in the proviso to Section-12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 on the basis of conjectures without having any sufficient material to draw such conclusions. In my view, the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and the settled principles of law applicable for the grant of bail to the juveniles have not been considered by the Juvenile Justice Board and by the appellate court. In my view, the family custody is preferable to the institutional custody in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶13

In view of the above, present revision is allowed and the order dated 28.02.2022 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act) Court No.1, Ghaziabad and dated 08.02.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad are hereby set-aside .

¶14

Let the revisionist, Minor "X", through his natural guardian/father- "Y" , R/o Mohalla- Vyapariyan Murad Nagar, Police Station- Murad Nagar, District- Ghaziabad be released on bail in Case Crime No.1097 of 2021, under sections 307, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Murad Nagar, District- Ghaziabad upon his father furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad subject to

¶15

the following conditions:

¶16

(i) that the natural guardian/father- "Y" 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 indulge in any criminal activity;

¶17

(ii) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;

¶18

(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall also 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;

¶19

Order Date :- 1.11.2022 Saif

¶20

Digitally signed by SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN Date: 2022.11.01 17:10:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Juvenile X (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile X (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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

X- Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

X- Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Juvenile 'X' Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kapil Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Minor 'X' Vs State of U.P. and Another