Allowed

Manish Verma Thru. His Father Kailash Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2023/281/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a criminal revision seeking bail for a declared juvenile accused of a sexual offence. The court held that lower courts erred in rejecting bail without considering mandatory provisions of Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2015, citing only assumptions rather than evidence of danger. The impugned orders were set aside, and bail granted with strict reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned orders; released revisionist Manish Verma on bail via personal bond and sureties with conditions to report to Probation Officer monthly and avoid contact with criminals.

Manish Verma Thru. His Father Kailash Verma Vs State of… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:42384

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 281 of 2023

¶4

Revisionist :- Manish Verma Thru. His Father Kailash Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶8

The present revision has been been filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the order dated 16.02.2023 passed in Case Crime No.763 of 2022, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Dhaurahara, District Lakhimpur Kheri whereby the bail application of the revisionist was rejected.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the applicant has been declared juvenile and his date of birth is 10.07.2005. It is further submitted that at the time of alleged incident, the revisionist was aged 17 Years 2 Months & 13 Days and thereafter he was declared juvenile vide order dated 20.12.2022 by the court below and there is no appeal against the said order. It is further submitted the the victim was major at the date of incident and the applicant has falsely been implicated in the case due to enmity. Revisionist has no criminal history apart from this case. As per the report of probation officer, there is no evidence to the effect that revisionist will indulge in criminal activities after releasing on bail. It is further submitted that both the lower courts did not consider the provisions of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act. Revisionist is languishing in jail since 31.10.2022 and if he is granted the liberty of bail he will not misuse the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of bail of the revisionist

¶11

and submitted that victim has corroborated the incident in her statement recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that photographs of the victim made viral by the revisionist, therefore, the revisionist is not entitled for bail.

¶12

Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that according to F.I.R., revisionist has enticed away the victim and committed sexual offence against her but there is no injury on the body of both the revisionist and the victim. There is no criminal history of the revisionist. The applicant was in jail since 31.10.2022. Probation Officer did not disclose anything adverse in the report against the applicant and trial court did not follow the provisions of Section 12 of JJ Act while deciding the bail application of the revisionist under JJ Act, 2015. According to the report of Probation Officer, it is contended that during investigation statements of neighbours namely Lavkush & Avadhram were recorded in which they stated that after one year from the death of cousin sister of revisionist, the F.I.R. was lodged and neither the family members of the revisionist nor the neighbours have prior information of the incident and they got to know from the police after the F.I.R. was lodged.

¶13

Provisions of Section 12 of "JJ Act, 2015" manifest that ordinarily, the Juvenile Justice Board is under obligation to release the juvenile on bail with or without surety. The juvenile shall not be released in certain circumstances as the latter part of the section also uses the word 'shall' imposing certain mandatory conditions prohibiting the release of the juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board. If there are any reasonable grounds for believing; (a) that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal; (b) that release is likely to expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger and (c) that release of the juvenile is in conflict with law and would defeat the ends of justice.

¶14

From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned J.J. Court did not consider the provision of Section 12 of J.J. Act, however, the applicant has been declared juvenile in conflict with law vide order dated 20.12.2022. The bail of the present applicant is rejected merely on the ground that the case is of heinous nature and there is probability that the applicant shall come in contact with hardened criminals and he may come

¶15

to peril morally, physically and psychologically. There is no record on the file to show that there is any type of moral, physical or psychological danger to the applicant. There is no evidence to the fact that he may come in contact with hardened criminals. Court reached to the conclusion only on the basis of assumption. Learned trial court did not discuss the provisions of Section 12 of J.J. Act, , however, it is apparent that if the accused is put up in observation home then there is more danger to the applicant to come in contact with hardened criminals. Learned appellate court had also confirmed the order of J.J. Court without going to the fact that there is no evidence on record to show that applicant shall involve in any other case of like nature and shall come in contact with hardened criminal and learned appellate court confirmed the order of learned J.J. Court without considering this, hence, the judgment of appellant court dated 16.03.2023 by which it confirmed the order of J.J. Board dated 03.01.2023 as well as the order J.J. Board are set aside and the present criminal revision is allowed.

¶16

Let the revisionist - Manish Verma be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian/father, in Case Crime No.763 of 2022, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Dhaurahara, District Lakhimpur Kheri, after furnishing a personal bond on his father with two sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶17

(i) Natural guardian/father will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the revisionist will not be permitted to go 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 repeat the offence.

¶18

(ii) Natural guardian/father will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juvenile will pursue his study at the appropriate level which he would be encouraged to do besides other constructive activities and not be allowed to waste his time in unproductive and excessive recreational pursuits.

¶19

(iii) Juvenile and natural guardian/father will report to the Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month

¶20

commencing with the first Monday of August 2023, and if during any calendar month the first Monday falls on a holiday, then on the following working day.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 3.7.2023 S. Shivhare

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manish Verma Thru. His Father Kailash Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Verma Thru. His Father Kailash Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashutosh Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Adesh Yadav Alias Adesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and 2 Others

Rajesh Jaiswal and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrtt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Shrawan Kumar Gupta and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Asarey Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Anshu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.