Allowed

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

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2022CRLR/250/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench allowed the criminal revision setting aside orders denying bail to a juvenile accused of murder aged 16 years 7 months. The court held that detention based on presumptions violated Section 12(1) of the J.J. Act, 2015, especially as co-accused were granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders denying bail set aside; juvenile released on bail subject to personal bond, undertaking against criminal contact, and strict vigilance by the District Probation Officer.

X (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 250 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- X (Minor) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Santosh Kumar Shukla,Ali Hasan,Ramajan Ahmad,Taniya Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Ms.Taniya Pandey and Sri Ramajan Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This criminal revision has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 09.11.2021 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Auraiya and order dated 20.12.2021 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Auraiya in Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2021 affirming the order of J. J. Board declining bail to the juvenile in case crime no.350 of 2020, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. P.S. Auraiya, District Auraiya.

¶7

As per prosecution case, an F.I.R. was lodged by mother of the deceased suspecting four persons namely Balak Ram alias Pappu, Khilani Devi, Ratiram and the present juvenile-revisionist as having murdered her son who allegedly went missing on 10.06.2020 from a place where he had gone to meet some relatives. When they searched for him, his deadbody was found beside banks of a river. His body parts, both upper limbs and head was not found intact. The named accused persons were arrested. Missing body parts were recovered on pointing out by father of the juvenile Balakram as well as by the juvenile himself. They allegedly confessed their involvement in this crime before the police. After collection of the evidence, all the four named accused persons were chargesheeted.

¶8

Finding one of them a juvenile, he was produced before the J.J.Board where his age determination enquiry was conducted. He was found aged 16 years and seven months on the date of occurrence. Bail application moved on his behalf was dismissed by the J.J.Board and appeal preferred against the order of J.J.Board also came to be dismissed. Now the juvenile revisionist is before this Court.

¶9

It is contented on behalf of the revisionist that besides ignoring broader principles of law as applicable in the matters of bail to a juvenile and further ignoring the mandate of Section 12 (1) of the J.J.Act,2015 several other material circumstances relating to the incident have been altogether ignored by the board as well as the appellate court. These facts were completely ignored that there has not been any credible evidence against the juvenile so as to demonstrate his involvement in the crime. The case is based on confession made before the police. Recovery of the body parts

¶10

was done on the pointing out by one of the main accused Balakram, his father and the juvenile's name has been inserted by the police to falsely implicate them. It is also contended that story as made in the recovery memo cannot be relied upon as the facts as narrated in the memo assigned general role to both of them. These facts also have been ignored that the District Probation Officer found nothing adverse against character and conduct of the accused. The juvenile has no criminal history and no criminal tendencies and that he is in juvenile home 12.06.2020 i.e. last more than two and half years.

¶11

Opposing this criminal revision, it is pointed by the counsel for the respondent no.2 that bail application presented by the juvenile already stands rejected in regular side by order dated 11.08.2021 passed by another Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.390 of 2021. Hence, in view of the facts, the present revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

I went through the order of J.J.Board. It appears that J.J.Board simply relied on report of D.P.O. whereby a probability was expressed that in case he is released, he may get exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger.

¶13

I went through the order of appellate court. The appellate court dismissed the appeal taking a view that prima facie his involvement in the crime was demonstrated from the evidence on record and concurred with the inference drawn by J.J.Board. I am of the opinion that there has not been any substantial material before the J.J.Board or the appellate court for drawing the inferences as mentioned in the orders for bringing the matter within the restricted confines of proviso to Section 12(1) of the J.J.Act. Hence the impugned orders may not pass the test of statutory provisions as aforesaid.

¶14

Admittedly the name of the juvenile came to be mentioned on the basis of suspicion only and admittedly during investigation only evidence collected was of the nature of confession and recovery on joint pointing out of with other accused Balakram. Admittedly rest of three accused persons namely Smt. Khilani Devi, Ratiram @ Master and Balakram @ Pappu, who came to be chargesheeted, have been granted bail by another Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.32772 of 2020, 23639 of 2020 and 29319 of 2022 vide orders dated 03.11.2020, 30.04.2021 and 03.11.2022 respectively.

¶15

I do not find any adverse fact in the D.P.O. Report to prompt this Court to decline bail to the juvenile. In my view, the inferences for bringing the case within the proviso to Section12 (1) of the J.J.Act cannot be grounded on presumptions, surmises or conjuncture. The juvenile is in detention since last two and half years. It is vehemently argued that there is no justification to keep him in juvenile home when all the accused persons, who did not have any better case, have been granted bail. As far as the contention of respondent no.2 is concerned about the rejection of his

¶16

regular bail, in my view, that order has no legal value as it was passed without jurisdiction.

¶17

In view of the above, especially, in view of the period of incarceration already undergone, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 09.11.2021 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Auraiya and order dated 20.12.2021 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Auraiya are hereby set aside.

¶18

Let the revisionist, minor "X' through his natural guardian/mother Smt. Khilani Devi w/o Balakram @ Pappu r/o Doctor Ka Purwa, Auraiya, P.S. Auraiya, District Etawah be released on bail in Case Crime No. 350 of 2020, under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. P.S. Auraiya, District Auraiya upon his mother Smt. Khilani Devi furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of her relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Auraiya subject to the following conditions:

¶19

(i) that the natural guardian/mother Smt. Smt. Khilani Devi 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 mother will ensure that the juvenile will not indulge in any criminal activity;

¶20

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

¶21

(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;

¶22

(iv) The District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the revisionist and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Auraiya on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

¶23

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court/J.J.Board shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, uninfluenced by any finding or observation whatsoever in this order. Order Date :- 1.12.2022

¶24

Asha

¶25

Digitally signed by ASHA Date: 2022.12.02 14:13:20 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

Sevaram Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sheepu @ Neelesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

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

Lalit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others