Allowed

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

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2022CRLR/1580/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision challenging the bail rejection of a juvenile. Finding insufficient evidence against him beyond co-accused confession and no grounds for danger or flight, the court set aside orders declining bail and directed release on bond.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; orders of Juvenile Justice Board and Additional Sessions Judge set aside; juvenile released on bail with personal bond and two sureties.

X(Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1580 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- X(Minor) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Lokesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yogendra Pal Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Lokesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Yogendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Shamli and the order dated 24.02.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Shamli in Criminal Appeal No.36/12A of 2021 by 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.127 of 2021, under section- 363 I.P.C., Police Station- Adarshmandi, DistrictShamli.

¶8

As per prosecution story, father of the victim/deceasedMohit lodged an F.I.R. being Case Crime No.127 of 2021, under sections- 363 I.P.C. only, alleging that his son, aged about 10 years, had gone to buy chow mein but never returned. The investigation commenced. The informant expressed suspicion on none. However, two independent witnesses, i.e., Pankaj and Mintu, in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., disclosed the fact that mother of deceased/third wife of informant- Satbeer and second wife of Satbeer did not entertain good relations between them and the children of both the wives often had altercations. For the first time, the above two witnesses expressed their apprehension that one of the sons of the second wife of informant had done to death his step-brother Mohit. Mother of co-accused (not the present revisionist) stated that she saw her son going with his step-brother towards jungle on a motor-cycle and that deceased Mohit was never found thereafter. On the basis of this statements, the step-brother of the deceased was apprehended; he was interrogated and he confessed that the deceased was carried away by him on the pretext of having some cold drinks; and that he was done to death with the assistance of present co-accused and his body was disposed of in the water canal in a different village Lilaun.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the clothes worn by deceased were recovered on pointing out of the co-accused and the present juvenile-accused person.

¶10

Finding the present revisionist a juvenile, the matter was brought before the Juvenile Justice Board, where in an age determination inquiry, he was found to be aged about 17 years and 5 months. His application for release through his father was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board. The appeal filed against the order also came to be dismissed by the Children Court. Therefore, the revisionist-juvenile through his natural guardian/father came before this Court in criminal revision under section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

¶11

It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that besides not adhering to the broader principles of law applicable in the matters of bail to the juveniles and ignoring the mandate of proviso to section- 12(1) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court absolutely ignored the facts that there has not been any credible or admissible evidence against the present juvenile. It is further contended that there has not been any material before the Juvenile Justice Board or the appellate court to arrive at a conclusion that, if he released, he shall be exposed to physical, moral or psychological danger; or that the ends of justice shall stand defeated; or that he may come in association with any known criminal. Hence, the impugned orders are not sustainable.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed this criminal revision.

¶13

I went through the impugned orders. This fact is not disputed that the F.I.R. under section 363 I.P.C. was lodged against unknown person and that the evidence so far collected by the Investigating Officer, if believed on its face value, pointed out that the deceased was last seen with the other co-accused (his step-brother). The evidence collected to show the motive could have been of some value against the co-accused and not the present juvenile. This fact is also not disputed that the only evidence on which, as per the prosecution case, the fact of involvement has been found against the present juvenile, is confessional statement of the co-accused and the recovery of clothes on joint pointing out of the two; this fact is not disputed that no other evidence has been found against the present revisionist in the case; this fact is also not disputable that the juvenile has had no criminal history; and that there has not been anything adverse in the social investigation report to draw the inference that he may get exposed to any physical, moral or

¶14

psychological danger; or that he may come in association with any known criminal; or that his release may defeat the ends of justice.

¶15

It appears that the bail has been declined by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court only on the basis of his probable involvement in a crime of heinous nature while all the other facts and circumstances have been ignored. In my view, there has not been any material to draw the inferences as have been drawn by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court. This fact can also not be ignored that the juvenile is in apprehension since 31.07.2021, i.e., about one and a half years now.

¶16

In view of the above, present revision is allowed and the order dated 24.02.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Shamli and order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Shamli are hereby set-aside .

¶17

Let the revisionist, Minor "X", through his natural guardian/father- "Y" , R/o Village- Goharani, Police StationAdarshmandi, District- Shamli be released on bail in Case Crime No.127 of 2021, under section- 363 I.P.C., Police Station- Adarshmandi, District- Shamli 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, Shamli subject to the following conditions:

¶18

(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;

¶19

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

¶20

(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;

¶21

The trial court shall not be influenced by any finding or observation made in this order.

¶22

Order Date :- 16.11.2022/Saif

¶23

Digitally signed by SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN Date: 2022.11.16 17:30:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Vijay Kumar @ Maheshwari Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Minor 'X' Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akhlak Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

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

Ramanand Nishad Vs State of U.P. and Another