Allowed

X Juvenile v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2022CRLR/18/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal revision, the High Court set aside orders denying bail to a juvenile accused of robbery and aggravated abetment. The court found the lower courts failed to consider evidence connecting the juvenile and granted bail with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of Juvenile Justice Board and Additional Session Judge set-aside. Juvenile released on bail with strict conditions and sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 18 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- X Juvenile Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Narsingh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Narsingh Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 15.09.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Basti and the order dated 04.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Basti in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2021 by the which the order of the Juvenile Justice Board is affirmed and bail to the juvenile is declined in a matter arising out of Case Crime No.63 of 2021, under sections- 394, 307, 504, 506, 411 I.P.C., Police StationParasrampur, District- Basti.

¶8

As per prosecution case, one Lalmani Pandey, was looted of his money kept in a bag about Rs.50,000/- when he was going back after closing his shop on 19.02.2021 at about 9:30 p.m. in the night; when he was intercepted for the purpose of snatching his bag, he recognized one of the several assailants as Prem Soni and his three associates, who fired at him and he sustained one fire arm injury on his thigh and one on the abdomen. The F.I.R. was lodged by father of the injured being Case Crime No.63 of 2021, under sections- 394, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. and the injured was brought for medical assistance and he was referred for higher medical treatment.

¶9

After a gap of almost 20 days, three persons were arrested by the police from whom several illegal fire arms were recovered; one of them was juvenile who confessed that he was one who fired at the injured Lalmani to rob him of his money; the other two persons also confessed their involvement in the crime in question and charge-sheet was submitted against four persons excluding one Prem Soni, who was initially named in the F.I.R.

¶10

Finding one of the persons as minor, his case was brought before the Juvenile Justice Board, where an age determination inquiry took place and he was declared aged 16 years and 6

¶11

months on the date of occurrence. His bail application was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board and the bail preferred against the order of the Juvenile Justice Board also came to be dismissed. Now, the revisionist through his natural guardian/mother has come before this Court.

¶12

It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that besides ignoring the broader principles of law as applicable in the matter of bail to a juvenile and the mandate of section- 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the Juvenile Justice Board as well as appellate court altogether ignored the fact that there has not been any evidence showing the involvement of the accused in the crime in question except his own confessional statement that was given before the police; nothing incriminating was recovered from the juvenile so as to connect him with the crime of robbery. It is also contended that the police made up a story to solve the case and falsely implicate the juvenile to serve their own interest; the so called criminal history is again a product of high handedness of the police department; infact three of the cases were based on the concocted story in which the accusedjuvenile was said to be involved in Case Crime No.91 of 2021 relating to police encounter; there are two other cases of 2019 and in both the cases he was falsely implicated out of enmity; in the present case before this Court two accused persons Deepak @ Vikrant Shukla and Chandan Tiwari @ Laxmi Chandra have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 27.08.2021 and 12.08.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No. 27034 of 2021 and 19606 of 2021; respectively. Hence, it is not at all justified to keep the juvenile in custody just because he is a minor.

¶13

These facts are not disputed that the accused was not named in the F.I.R. and that his name for the first time, came into light on the basis of arrest of three persons in a case of police encounter in which he himself confessed that he was involved in the incident of loot relating to Case Crime No.63 of 2021. This fact is not disputed that the juvenile accused was never put to identification parade and that he has not been identified by any witness. I went through the social investigation report, which appears to be quite normal. I did not find any fact in the social investigation report, which may prompt this Court to decline bail to him.

¶14

I went through the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court. It appears that the Juvenile Justice Board declined bail the juvenile solely on the basis of nature of allegations against him. The appellate court has drawn inference that in case he is released on bail, he may come in association with known criminals or he may be exposed to physical, moral

¶15

or psychological danger or that this release may defeat the ends of justice without having any material before it for arriving at such conclusion. Hence, in my view, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case and of the fact that the juvenile is in detention since 09.03.2021, i.e., about one years and 10 months now, I find it appropriate to release him on bail subject to certain strict conditions.

¶16

In view of the above, the present revision is allowed and the order dated 04.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Basti and dated 15.09.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Basti are hereby set-aside .

¶17

Let the revisionist, Minor "X", through his natural guardian/mother- "Y" , R/o Village- Kodari, Police StationParasrampur, District- Basti be released on bail in Case Crime No.63 of 2021, under sections- 394, 307, 504, 506, 411 I.P.C., Police Station- Parasrampur, District- Basti upon his mother furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Basti subject to the following conditions:

¶18

(i) that the natural guardian/mother- "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

(iv) An undertaking shall be given by his mother that he shall attend the office of District Probation Officer in the first week of every month and get his presence registered;

¶22

(v) The District Probation Officer shall keep strict vigil on the activities of the revisionist and regularly draw up his social investigation report.

¶23

In case of default to comply with the conditions imposed

¶24

herein, a report shall be given by District Probation Officer to the Juvenile Justice Board/court concerned for obtaining suitable orders;

¶25

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

¶26

Order Date :- 25.11.2022 Saif

¶27

Digitally signed by SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN Date: 2022.11.29 10:00:20 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

X Juvenile v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

X Juvenile 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

Xxxxxxx Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ambuj Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Xx ( Minor ) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Girish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Deep Shikha Gupta Vs Sanjay Gupta