Allowed

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

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2022CRLR/1572/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision challenging bail refusal orders. Finding no grounds under the Juvenile Justice Act to deny bail due to lack of admissible evidence, the Court set aside lower court orders and directed the juvenile's release on bail with strict conditions, while clarifying these observations do not decide the case on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 04.03.2022 and 23.03.2022 set aside. Juvenile released on bail with personal bond, two solvable sureties, and strict undertakings regarding conduct and social investigation.

Juvenile X (Minor) Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1572 of 2022 Revisionist :- Juvenile X (Minor) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Raj Kumar Gautam,Ganesh Shanker Srivastava,Ramdhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nirbhay Kumar

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Ramdhan, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State of U.P.

¶4

This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 04.03.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hathras and further challenging the order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Juvenile Court, Hathras in Bail Application No. 340/2022 affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board declining bail to the juvenile in criminal case arising out of Case Crime No. 03 of 2021 under Sections 302, 34, 120B IPC, Police Station Hasayan, District-Hathras.

¶5

As per prosecution story, an F.I.R. was lodged by the informant-real brother of the deceased expressing suspicion on four persons namely, Sanjay Singh, Titu, Bhavnesh and Virendra that they killed his brother namely, Maharaj alias Chhote Lal in the night of 02/03.01.2021; His dead body was found in the agricultural field of Gram Pradhan, where he had gone to take care of his crop as usual; the information about finding of the dead boby on the scene of crime was given by one Lekhraj Singh to the informant's brother and F.I.R. was lodged by him; matter was investigated upon; in the postmortem, it was found that he died of asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation. The statements of witnesses were recorded and no eye witness account could be collected. However, in the later stages of the investigation it was stated by Lekhrah Singh in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., stated that one Arvind Kumar and the present juvenile came to him and confessed that they committed murder of the deceased. On the basis of this extra judicial confession, this juvenile was proceeded. After collection of some more evidence accused Arvind Kumar and this juvenile have been chargesheeted for offence under Section 302 read with 34 and 120 I.P.C.

¶6

Finding one of the chargesheeted accused a minor he was brought before the J.J.Board where age determination inquiry took place and he was found aged 17 years and 6 months. An application on his behalf for release through guardian/father was dismissed by J.J.Board. The appeal preferred on his behalf also came to dismissed by the appellate court. Now the revisionist minor is before this Court under Section 102 of J.J.Act, 205.

¶7

It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that apart from not adhering to the principle of law particularly applicable in the matters of the bail to the juvenile; the J.J.Board as well as the appellate court did not take into consideration the fact that there was absolutely no credible and admissible evidence against the juvenile as far as his involvement in this case is concerned. My attention has been drawn to the fact that the juvenile is in custody since at least to two years now and he has no criminal history.

¶8

This fact is not disputed that the juvenile as well as co-accused persons

¶9

who have been chargesheeted in this case were not initially named in the F.I.R. Named four persons as suspects were not found to be involved in the case. This fact is also not disputable that only evidence against the juvenile is of extra judicial confession supposedly made before the witness Lekhraj on whose information the F.I.R. was lodged and a piece of confessional statement of the co-accused persons namely Arvind and Sudha. This fact is also not in dispute that co-accused Arvind Kumar and Smt. Sudha have been granted bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 47025 of 2021 and 44789 of 2021 by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.01.2022 and 07.01.2022 respectively.

¶10

In view of the above undisputed fact it is contended that it is at all not justifiable to keep the juvenile in detention with other co-accused persons allegedly having more prominent and clear role in this case and having some motive also, have been granted liberty of bail.

¶11

This fact not disputed that the juvenile has no criminal history. In my view, there was no material before the courts below to draw conclusions to bring this case within the scope of proviso to Section 12(1) of the J.J.Act for declining bail. Therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable.

¶12

In view of the above, the revision is allowed . The judgment and order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Juvenile Court, Hathras and 04.03.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hathras, are hereby set aside.

¶13

Let the revisionist, minor "X' through his guardian/father be released on bail in Case Crime No. 03 of 2021 under Sections 302, 34, 120B IPC, Police Station Hasayan, District-Hathras upon his guardian furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Hathras subject to the following conditions:

¶14

(i) that the 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 guardian will ensure that the juvenile will not indulge in any criminal activity;

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

(iv) 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 on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

¶18

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, uninfluenced by any finding or observation whatsoever in this order.

¶19

Order Date :- 5.12.2022/Vik/-Asha

¶20

Digitally signed by VIKRAM GUPTA Date: 2022.12.07 10:58:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Mukhtar Ahmed Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

Sajo and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Devi and 9 Others Vs State of U P and 4 Others

X (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anshu @ Mohd Riyaz Vs State of U.P. and Another

X Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another