Allowed

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

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2022CRLR/2142/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 2142 of 2021, Allahabad High Court allowed the revision filed by a juvenile outsider summoned in a dowry death case. It set aside lower court orders declining bail, releasing the juvenile on personal bond subject to conditions, finding insufficient material to justify restrictive bail provisions.

What did the court decide?

The revision was allowed; impugned orders declining bail were set aside; the juvenile released on bail with sureties and specific undertaking conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2142 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Juvenile X Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pradeep Kumar Shukla,Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

2. Perused the record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 25.05.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly and the order dated 24.08.2020 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No.61 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.462 of 2016, under sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station- Nawabganj, District Bareilly.

¶8

As per the allegations in the F.I.R. daughter of the informant was married to Mohan Lal S/o Hori Lal. She was being continuously harassed by her in-laws and Mohan Lal for not bringing sufficient dowry. On 03.10.2016 the informant came to know that his daughter is missing. He suspected her husband and her in-laws and one more of his village, the present juvenile of having murdered her daughter. The F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the deceased against 7 persons of her in-laws family and one more who happens to be present juvenile revisionist. As per the investigation her (deceased's) dead body was found beside the banks of a river in the village Adhkata. As per papers on record the Sessions Trial No. 71/17 (State Vs. Mohan Lal and others) proceeded against some of the charge sheeted accused persons. The revisionist was not charge sheeted. During trial an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of informant which came to be decided by the Sessions Court by an order dated 18.02.2020. By the aforesaid order the present juvenile and two more persons were summoned to face trial under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C.

¶9

and Section 3/4 D. P. Act. Finding one of the newly summoned accused person as minor, he was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board wherein the age determination enquiry, he was found aged 16 years, 4 months and 15 days on the date of alleged occurrence. He was lodged in an observation home. His bail application was dismissed by the Juvenile Justice Board by an order dated 07.04.2021. The appeal preferred against the order of Juvenile Justice Board on behalf of juvenile came to be dismissed by an order dated 24.08.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2021. Now the juvenile is before this Court in this criminal revision preferred under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

¶10

It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that besides ignoring the broader principle of law as applicable in the matter of bail to a juvenile and further ignoring the mandate of Section-12 (i) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, learned court below glossed over the fact that in this matter relating to demand of dowry and dowry death, the juvenile-revisionist had no role to play as he was outsider; there was no evidence to even prima facie demonstrate that he had any motive or any reason to participate in the crime or get benefited by demand of dowry, if any. It is also contended that no fact adverse to his character or conduct was mentioned in the D.P.O. report to prompt the Court below to decline bail to him. This fact has also been placed before me that charge-sheeted co-accused persons who belonged to the family of her (deceased) in-laws have been granted bail vide orders dated 28.06.2017, 04.04.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22498 of 2017 and 10973 of 2017. It is argued that prime suspects who belonged to the family of her in-laws and who might have motive to commit the crime and who could be categorized as main accused persons were granted bail way back in the year 2017 but the present revisionist who had much better case and who was summoned under the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is still detained just because of intricacies of provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

¶11

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

¶12

I went through the impugned order of Juvenile Justice Board. It seems that Juvenile Justice Board declined the bail to the juvenile drawing inferences on the basis of D.P.O. report only. I have also gone through the order of the appellate Court. It appears that appellate Court did selective reading of D.P.O. report and concurred with the conclusion drawn by the Juvenile Justice Board, I minutely perused the impugned orders and in my view there has not been sufficient material before the Courts below to draw such inferences as have been drawn by them to

¶13

bring the case within the restrictive confines of proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

¶14

Following facts are indisputable that a woman died in unnatural circumstances and accusing finger was raised towards the members of her in-laws family. The only outsider named in the F.I.R. was the revisionist juvenile who was not chargesheeted after the investigation. He was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 3/4 D. P. Act.

¶15

It is argued on behalf of revisionist that being an outsider he had no role to play and possibly could not have any in the offence of this nature. Indisputably, he has no criminal antecedents. The co-accused persons Hori Lal, Sarwati, Bhola Nath and Dharam Devi have already been granted regular bail in the year 2017. The revisionist-juvenile is detained in custody since 03.02.2021 i.e. since about more than 1 year and 10 months now.

¶16

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 24.08.2020 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly and order dated 25.05.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly are hereby set-aside .

¶17

Let the revisionist, Minor "X", through his natural guardian/father- "Y" , R/o Village- Adhkata Rabbani Begum, Police Station- Navabganj, District- Bareilly be released on bail in Case Crime No.462 of 2016, under section- 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and section- 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station- Navabganj, District-Bareilly 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, Bareilly 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

¶21

on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court;

¶22

The trial court shall not be influenced by any finding or observation made in this order. Order Date :- 2.12.2022 AKT

¶23

Digitally signed by ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI Date: 2022.12.06 10:33:24 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Minor through Guardian and Mother Smt Sushila Devi Vs State of U.P.and Another

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

X Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

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