Allowed

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

Allahabad HC29 Sept 2022CRLR/2186/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside an order refusing bail to a juvenile accused. Holding that gravity of offence is not a ground for denying bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the court reversed the lower court's decision and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; impugned order set aside; revisionist released on bail subject to personal bond and specific undertakings.

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

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2186 of 2022

¶4

Revisionist :- Mr.X(Minor) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.

¶6

The instant criminal revision under Section 102 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Etah in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 457 of 2017, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station Malawan, District Etah, whereby learned Appellate Court set aside the order dated 07.04.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Etah (in short Board).

¶7

It is pertinent to mention briefly, relevant and necessary facts relating to the disposal of present revision: On 11.12.2017 at about 9.00 a.m. complainant Abhay Kumar informed to the Police Station Malwan, District, Etah that while he was on a walk towards bank of the canal in the village, he saw a dead body of unknown person, aged about 20 years, lying ensanguine condition. Later the dead body, was identified by its family members, the body of Roop Kumar @ Vishal. On the basis of this information FIR was lodged under Sections 302 & 201 I.P.C. against unknown persons. Subsequently, a tehrir was given by the informant at the Police Station with the averments that revisionist and X Juvenile (co-accused) were closed friend of his deceased brother. On 10.12.2017 at about 3.30 p.m., they took away the deceased on a mother-cycle on the pretext of attending a party. When the deceased did not return in the night, they searched him places in vicinity. At the same time revisionist and X Juvenile (co-accused) were not found in their homes. Informant’s brother Chote Lal has stated that he saw revisionist and X Juvenile (co-accused) going along with his deceased brother on 10.12.2017 at about 5.00 p.m. towards Malwan. In Follow up action revisionist and X Juvenile (co-accused) were apprehended by the police on 12.12.2017 and their confessional statements were recorded. The complainant suspected that his deceased brother was murdered by these people. Later on pointing out of the revisionist a country made pistol was recovered from the X Juvenile (co-accused). A separate FIR was lodged in this behalf against X Juvenile (co-accused) on 12.12.2017 as Case Crime No. 460/17, under Section 25/27 Arms Act.

¶8

¶9

A perusal of the bail application (No. 15 of 2018) before the Board, Etah, reveals that revisionist was declared juvenile delinquent vide order dated 03.02.2018 passed by the Board and admitted him on bail by the Board vide order dated 07.04.2018. Mor Mukut, the brother of the deceased, instituted a Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2018, before the Sessions Judge, Etah, against the order passed by the Board. Learned Sessions Judge vide its judgement and order dated 07.04.2022, allowed the appeal and set aside the bail order dated 07.04.2018 passed by the Board. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Sessions Judge the present revision has been preferred by the revisionist.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned order submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident. He was declared juvenile delinquent by the Board vide its order dated 03.02.2018, wherein after due inquiry his age, on the date of occurrence, i.e., 11.12.2017, is recorded 14 years, 5 months and 2 days and the Board allowed his bail application (No. 15 of 2018) u/s 12 of the J.J. Act considering him juvenile. Complainant filed an appeal (No. 45 of 2018) against the order dated 07.04.2018 before the learned Sessions Judge, Etah. The said appeal was allowed and order dated 07.04.2018 of the Board set asided and the bail application no. 15 of 2018 was rejected vide order dated 07.04.2022 by the learned Sessions Judge. Learned counsel for the revisionist next argued that aforesaid order regarding age of the revisionist has attain finality because the same has not been challenged by the opposite party. As a matter of course, this age of the revisionist is not disputed, as such he is entitled to be enlarged on bail, in view of provision of Section 12 of J.J. Act. The learned Sessions Judge erred and committed illegality in refusing the bail to the revisionist.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions made above by the learned counsel for revisionist, and argued that the proviso appended with, Section 12 of the J.J. Act lays down contingencies in which bail could be refused to a juvenile, namely (i) if there appears reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into the association with any known criminals, or (ii) expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger, or (iii) his release would defeat the ends of justice. Learned A.G.A. further argued that the revisionist has committed a heinous offence if he is enlarged on bail, it would defeat the ends of justice and he may commit similar type of offences in future and may fall in association of known criminals. His bail application was rightly rejeted by the impugned order in view of the proviso attached to Section 12 of J.J. Act. There is no

¶13

¶14

illegality in impugned order and it contains no perversity in the eye of law with these observations the learned A.G.A. submitted that the revision has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶15

Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, it may be concluded that a bare reading of the provisions of Section 12 J.J. Act reveals that a juvenile offender is generally entitled to be enlarged on bail only on the basis of his juvenility u/s 12 J.J. Act, particularly, in view of the specific legislative intent regarding protection and care of the children. It may be mentioned that a general legislative presumption does appear to exist under the scheme of the Act that the welfare of the alleged juvenile delinquent would be better served without he being confined for the long duration. However, in view of the proviso attached to Section 12 of J.J. Act, it cannot be denied that juvenile may not be refused bail for specific reasons and in certain contingencies, as argued above by the learned A.G.A.

¶16

Now the question is that whether the opinion of the learned appellate Court as well as the opinion of Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgments and orders are in consonance with the provision of Section 12 of the J. J. Act. In this regard at the outset, it may be emphasised that gravity of offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of the bail u/s 12 of the aforesaid Act.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the revisionist argued that he is not named in F.I.R., he is falsely implicated in the present case with ulterior motive, all the witnesses are closed relatives of the deceased/complainant and are interested witnesses. There is no direct evidence against the revisionist regarding commission of murder by him except the statements of Mor Mukut, Chote Lal and Ram Pal, the brothers of deceased, who have stated that they have seen the deceased in company of the revisionist and X Juvenile (co-accused) in the evening of the date of occurrence. The role of committing murder has been attributed to the revisionist along with coaccused on the basis of suspicion and evidence on record is based on conjectures and surmises. It is also submitted that there is no corroborative evidence to connect the revisionist with the commission of alleged crime.

¶18

Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that in PMR the cause of death of the deceased is opined shock and hemorrhage due to fire arm injuries. Three antemortem injuries on the body of the deceased were found. The revisionist has not been assigned any specific role in the incident, nothing incriminating material is recovered from his possession, rather a country made pistol was recovered by the police from co-accused X

¶19

¶20

Juvenile (revisionist in related Crl. Revision No. 2212 of 2022). Regarding the said recovery a separate FIR has been lodged as Case Crime 0460 of 2017, u/s 25/27 Arms Act against the co-accused X Juvenile. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that in the circumstances no case of murder is made out against revisionist. Revisionist has no criminal history/ antecedents to his credit and no motive has been attributed to the revisionist for commission of the alleged offence. The impugned judgement dated 07.04.2022 passed by the learned trial court is illegal and against the evidence on record. It is next submitted that similarly placed co-accused (X Juvenile, revisionist in Crl. Revision No. 2212 of 2022) has been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.09.2022 in Criminal Revision No. 2212 of 2022, the learned counsel for the revisionist argued that this revision may also be allowed on the same terms. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that revisionist is languishing in juvenile home since 06.05.2022.

¶21

Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the Social Investigation Report filed, by Probation Officer (P.O.) in this case, and referred in the order of the J.J. Board dated 07.04.2018 does not raise any specific or strong objection against the revisionist on his being released on bail and only general and unfounded objections and observation have been made therein and as referred in Board’s order dated 07.04.2018 the P.O. has reported that the revisionist is a simple natured good boy/ student, he does not quarrel with others, and his behaviour and repute is appreciable in public, further it may be reiterated that revisionist does not have any criminal antecedent to his credit and there is no material on record for believing that the release of revisionist is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger. Moreover simillarly placed co-accused X Juvenile in Crl. Revision No. 2212 of 2022 has been enlarged on bail, therefore, impugned order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside and revisionist is also entitled to be released on bail in view of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act as it will serve the ends of justice.

¶22

Although learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail of the revisionist on the ground of gravity of offence alleged against the revisionist but gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail under Section 12 of the aforesaid Act. Learned A.G.A. could not demonstrate from the record that there exist any of the grounds on which the bail to the

¶23

¶24

revisionist could be denied, keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

¶25

Considering the above, facts, circumstances and legal provisions, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are erroneous and cannot be sustained. Resultantly, revision deserves to be allowed and aforesaid impugned judgement and order dated 07.04.2022 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 45/2018 by the learned Sessions Judge is to be set aside.

¶26

Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed . The impugned order dated 07.04.2022 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 45/2018 by the learned Sessions Judge, Etah is set aside.

¶27

Let the revisionist Mr.X(Minor) involved in Case Crime No. 457 of 2017, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station Malawan, District Etah, be released on bail on following conditions.

¶28

(1) on his furnishing a personal bond by his father namely Raghuveer Singh who is his natural guardian/ father with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court/ Board concerned.

¶29

(2) that in addition to above mentioned personal bond and sureties the revisionist through his guardian/ father shall file an undertaking to the following effect:-

¶30

(i) he shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten or otherwise influence any witnesses;

¶31

(ii) he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court, unless exempted by the court.

¶32

(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court/ Board on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶33

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court, to any police officer, or tamper with the evidence.

¶34

Order Date :- 29.9.2022

¶35

Rmk.

¶36

¶37

Digitally signed by RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.12.02 13:33:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.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

Narndra Vs State of U.P.

Anees Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Tarun Khanna Vs State of U.P.

Ram Larait Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P. Vs Bhagwan Das

Raja @ Ishteqar Vs State of U.P.