Allowed

X- (Minor) v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2023CRLR/1692/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under the Juvenile Justice Act, the Allahabad High Court set aside lower court orders that failed to consider Section 12 provisions, allowing the minor revisionist bail with specific probation conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; revisionist released on bail, mother furnishes undertaking, and probation officer monitors juvenile with monthly reports.

X- (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:169139

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1692 of 2023

¶4

Revisionist :- X- (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Lakshmi Kant Pandey,Sandeep Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Kumar,Bhaskar Singh,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist through his mother with a prayer to allow this revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 02.03.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge Children Court, Bhadohi in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2023 as well as order dated 14.02.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Bhadohi. Further prayed to release the revisionist on bail in Case Crime No. 43 of 2022 under Section 34, 302, 201 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Chauri, District Bhadohi.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the delinquent was aged about 17 years at the time of alleged incident. It is further submitted that the revisionist was not named in F.I.R. with the named co-accused Abhishek Dharikar but on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused his name was brought into light during course of investigation. It is further submitted that false recovery of Gamcha and mobile phone of the deceased was shown by the I.O. from the well. It is also submitted that in the F.I.R. which was scribed by Virendra Kumar himself who is said to be last seen, it has been mentioned that he also came on the spot with other last seen witnesses Aditya Narayan even though the name of the present revisionist was not disclosed in F.I.R. It is also submitted that at the time of inquest proceedings the last seen Virendra Kumar and Aditya Narayan are also said to be present but they have not disclosed the name of the present revisionist. Later on during investigation, both of these persons were made last seen witnesses whose account of last seen cannot

¶9

be relied on. In case they had seen the revisionist on the place of occurrence while committing murder of the deceased or concealing his dead body they would have disclosed the fact before the informant either at the time of lodging of F.I.R. or at the time of inquest but it was not done by them. It cast suspicion on the whole prosecution story. It is further submitted that there is nothing adverse against the interest of the delinquent in the report submitted by D.P.O.

¶10

It is further submitted that the provisions as contained u/s 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act had not been considered by the Juvenile Justice Board even the report submitted by Probation Officer was also not considered. The appellate court has also not considered all these facts but rejected the appeal without applying its judicial mind and considering the law as contained u/s 12 of the aforesaid Act. He is in Child Care Home since 06.04.2022 i.e. more than one year and his psychology is being affected adversely, therefore, requested to set aside orders passed by the J.J. Board as well as appellate court and allow the criminal revision.

¶11

Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned opposed the prayer as aforesaid and urged that in this case the delinquent also took part in commission of murder of the deceased with named co-accused Abhishek Dharikar whose bail application has already been rejected by this Court and a role of present revisionist is also similar and was also admitted by the co-accused, therefore, he is also not entitled for release on bail.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A. for the State, the time delinquent remained in Child Care Home, perusal of record, the provisions as contained u/s 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, the report submitted by the Probation Officer, it appears that Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court had not considered the relevant provisions and the material on record in well manner but passed the orders without applying their judicial mind. In this way, there appears ground in this revision and the orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court are liable to be set aside.

¶13

Accordingly, the orders passed by Juvenile Justice Board dated 14.02.2023 and the appellate court dated 02.03.2023 are, hereby, set aside and present criminal revision is hereby, allowed .

¶14

It is directed that delinquent/applicant be released on bail on executing person bond by the revisionist ( mother of the

¶15

delinquent) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board concerned on following conditions :-

¶16

(i) The revisionist/ mother 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 mother will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.

¶17

(ii) The revisionist/ mother 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.

¶18

(iii) Juvenile and the revisionist/ mother will report to the Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month.

¶19

(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.

¶20

Order Date :- 22.8.2023 Suraj Srivastav

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

X- (Minor) v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

X- (Minor) v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

X (Juvenile) Vs State of U.P. and Anohter

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

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

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

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

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