Allowed

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

Allahabad HC23 Nov 2022CRLR/2008/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the criminal revision filed by a juvenile, holding that the JJB erred in relying solely on the Probation Officer's report without assessing material facts regarding delayed FIR and nature of death, and set aside bail rejection orders.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 13.04.2022 and 25.03.2022 set aside; Juvenile released on bail subject to bond and conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2008 of 2022

¶3

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

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sudhakar Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

2. Perused the record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat and the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2022 by the 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.321 of 2021, under section- 306 and section- 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Bilhaur, District- Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

As per prosecution case, one Zeeshan and the present juvenile used to harass the victim, a girl aged about 15 years; the family members of the victim complained to their families to restrain them from contacting the victim; however, they did not deter and because of the harassment meted out to the victim, she was compelled to take her life by committing suicide; an F.I.R. to the effect was lodged by father of the victim; investigation was conducted and both have been chargesheeted. Finding the present accused a juvenile, the matter was brought before the Juvenile Justice Board. In an age determination inquiry, the revisionist was found to be aged about 16 years. His application for bail was dismissed by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appeal filed on his behalf too came to be dismissed by the appellate court.

¶9

It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that besides ignoring the broader principles of law applicable in the matters of bail to the juveniles and ignoring the mandate of Section12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, some of very material facts have not been considered by the concerned courts. The court concerned ignored the fact that the first information report was lodged after about two weeks of the incident after consultation and deliberation with interested persons, with false

¶10

and fabricated facts. These facts have also been ignored that initially a simple report was lodged in the police station stating that the victim died because of taking some poisonous substances. Post-mortem was conducted and it was found that she died not because of administration of some poison but because of asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. All the above facts brought the case under suspicion and also primafacie showed that the juvenile was implicated because of ulterior motives. It is also contended that the other co-accused was in relationship with the victim and that the present juvenile had nothing to do with their relations and that he has been implicated just because he happened to be cousin of the other co-accused.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed this criminal revision.

¶12

I went through the papers on record as well as the impugned orders. It appears that the Juvenile Justice Board declined to grant bail to the juvenile on the single basis of report of District Probation Officer; the Juvenile Justice Board appears to have drawn inferences on presumptions for bringing the case within the restrictive confines of proviso to Section-12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The appellate court too has concurred with the judgement of the Juvenile Justice Board and has not made assessment of its own in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶13

These facts are not disputed that in this case initially a report was lodged with the concerned police station that the victim died of taking some poisonous substance. Later on two weeks after the post-mortem of the deceased, an F.I.R. was lodged naming the juvenile and one more; the post-mortem report reveals that she died of asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The paper submitted by the revisionist point towards a relationship between the victim and a person who is not the present juvenile. It has been forcefully contended that the present revisionist had been dragged in the matter just because he happened to be cousin of the other accused. I also went through the report of District Probation Officer and I do not find anything adverse for declining bail to him. The juvenile is in custody since more than a year now.

¶14

In view of the above and taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, present revision is allowed and the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kanpur Dehat and dated 25.03.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat are hereby set-aside .

¶15

Let the revisionist, Minor "X", through his natural guardian/father- "Y" , R/o Village- Sitarampurwa Musahebpur, Police Station- Bilhaur, District- Kanpur Nagar be released on bail in Case Crime No.321 of 2021, under section306 and section- 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Bilhaur, District- Kanpur Nagar 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, Kanpur Dehat subject to 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

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

¶20

Order Date :- 23.11.2022 Saif

¶21

Digitally signed by SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN Date: 2022.11.23 17:26:14 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

Minor X Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Minor X through His Natural Guardian Father Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Haseeb and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Awadhesh Kumar @ Sajni (Juvenile) Vs State of Up and Another

Saddam Husain Vs State of U.P. and Another