Allowed

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

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2022CRLR/3373/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision seeking bail for a juvenile under 16 years. Finding the courts below failed to record reasons for denying bail despite medical report discrepancies, the order was set aside, and bail was granted subject to sureties and rehabilitation conditions.

What did the court decide?

Judgments dated 08.07.2022 and 02.08.2022 setting aside bail are quashed. The juvenile is released on bail via a personal bond with two sureties subject to specific 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. - 3373 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- X (Juvenile ) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pankaj Bharti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Sri O. P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 08.07.2022 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Shamli and order dated 02.08.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Shamli in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2022 affirming the order of J. J. Board declining bail to the juvenile in case crime no.237 of 2022, under Sections 323, 304, 504 and 34 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Shamli, District Shamli.

¶8

As per the prosecution case, an N.C.R. was lodged at the initiative of the deceased stating therein that he found this juvenile 'X' and his companion having liquor and he asked them to go back home as it was already evening time. Enraged over such coaxing by the deceased both of them called their grandfather Omveer and assaulted the deceased by kicks, punches and lathi danda. The incident occurred at about 8.30 P.M. on 31.05.2020. His medical examination was done. As per injury report, an abrasion was found on the side of his head 1.05 x 0.5 cm above right ear and the second injury was complaint of pain. However, the injured died and his post mortem was carried out in which the cause of death was mentioned as cerebral damage as a result of ante mortem head injury. The injuries as mentioned in the post mortem report were abraded contusion 3cm x 1.5 cm on top of the head. On death of the deceased the NCR was converted into case crime no.237 of 2022, under Sections 323, 304, 504 and 34 I.P.C.

¶9

The named juvenile was detained and produced before the J.J.Board wherein age determination enquiry was conducted. He was declared 15 years, two months and 20 days on the date of occurrence. His bail application was rejected by the J.J.Board. The appeal filed on his behalf too came to be dismissed by order of the appellate court dated 02.08.2022. Now the revisionist is before this Court in criminal revision filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

¶10

It is contended on behalf the revisionist that there was no material before the J.J.Board or before the appellate court for drawing conclusion that in case he is released on bail, the ends of justice shall stand defeated. The courts below altogether ignored the fact that there was no credible evidence to show complicity of the juvenile in the matter. It is argued that

¶11

prosecution case stands on a very weak footing in view of the stark difference between the medical report and post mortem report. It is stated that the deceased died as a result of ante mortem head injury while his injury report showed only one abrasion that too 9cm above the ear. Actually he died of some infection in his abdomen as he was a heavy drinker. His death because of other causes is now being exploited and has been deliberately connected with this episode of simple marpeet.

¶12

On the other hand it is contended on behalf of the informant that the deceased belonged to the family of the accused persons, therefore, initially only N.C.R. was lodged so that matter could be settled at their level.

¶13

I went through papers on record including the impugned orders. The J.J.Board appears to have declined bail on plain and simple opinion that his release shall defeat the ends of justice without recording any reasons and grounds for reaching at this conclusion. The appellate court had concurred with the conclusion drawn by the J.J.Board taking a view that the juvenile is involved in a heinous crime and that it will not be appropriate to release on bail as the interest of justice demands balancing both the sides.

¶14

In my view, before the provision of Section 12 (1) proviso can be invoked the prosecution is burdened with the responsibility to prima facie show the complicity of the accused in the case. This fact is undisputable that there is unignorable variance between injury report and post mortem report. This argument from the side of the revisionist cannot just be kept aside that even if all the facts put forth by the prosecution are taken on its face value, at the most offence reaches to Section 304 I.P.C.

¶15

My attention has also been drawn to the social investigation report in which nothing adverse has been found against the character and conduct of the juvenile. In fact the D.P.O has suggested that the juvenile ought to have been released for continuance of his education keeping his future in mind. In my view, there has not been any material before the appellate court for bringing the case within the restrictive confines of proviso to Section 12(1) of the J.J. Act. The juvenile is below 16 years of age. Enough facts have been placed before me raising the suspicion as to merits of prosecution case .

¶16

The juvenile has no criminal history or criminal tendencies as reported by D.P.O and he is in detention from more than six months now. In my view, it will not be appropriate to keep the juvenile, who is aged about 15 years only, away from his family any further, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 08.07.2022 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Shamli and order dated 02.08.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Shamli are hereby set aside.

¶17

Let the revisionist, minor "X' through his natural guardian/father Karmveer s/o Omveer, resident of Kaabadot, Shamli be released on bail in Case Crime No.237 of 2022, under Sections 323, 304, 504 and 34 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Shamli, District Shamli upon his father Karmveer furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Shamli subject to the following conditions:

¶18

(i) that the natural guardian/father Karmveer 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) 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, Shamli on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 14.12.2022 Asha

¶24

Digitally signed by ASHA Date: 2022.12.15 16:36:59 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

X Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, U.P. Lko. and Anr.

Juvenile X Vs State of U.P. and Another

Km. Anika(Minor) and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Sanjay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sabiha Khatoon and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another