Allowed

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

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2023CRLR/3087/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the Allahabad High Court set aside the bail rejection orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Special Judge (POCSO Act). The court held that the lower forums failed to consider relevant provisions of the JJ Act, 2015, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

What did the court decide?

Orders of Juvenile Justice Board (11.2.2022) and appellate court (24.6.2022) set aside; revision allowed; delinquent released on bail with supervision conditions.

X (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:168220

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3087 of 2022

¶4

Revisionist :- X (Minor) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Krishna Dev Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohammad Abid Ali,Mohd Faiz

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

List revised. None appears for opposite party no. 2.

¶7

2.Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist through his mother under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "J.J. Act, 2015) to allow the present revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 24.6.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 1, District - Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2022 whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist has been rejected and the earlier order dated 11.2.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly by which the bail application of the revisionist has been rejected in Case Crime No 182of 2021 under Sections 302, 307, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station - Cantt, District-Bareilly and also prays to release the revisionist/delinquent on bail in the aforesaid case.

¶9

It is submitted that in this case the delinquent/applicant was aged about 16 years at the time of alleged incident and is in Child Care Home since 28.5.2021(i.e. more than two years). It is further submitted that as per version in the FIR, family members of the present delinquent were named with general allegation of making fire on the informant and her husband who succumb to injuries. It is further submitted that no any specific role was assigned to the present revisionist/delinquent for making fire either on the deceased or on the informant except general role. There is no criminal antecedents against the delinquent. There is nothing adverse to the interest of the delinquent. The report submitted by

¶10

the D.P.O. is also not adverse for the present delinquent even though the juvenility of the delinquent was not considered either by the J.J. Board or by the appellate court and also the provisions as contained u/s 12 of the aforesaid Act were not considered by the courts below while passing the aforesaid orders. The delinquent is in Juvenile Care Home since 28.5.2021 (i.e more than two years) and his psychology is being affected adversely, therefore, requested to set aside the orders passed by the J.J. Board as well as appellate court and allow the present criminal revision as the orders passed by the courts below cannot be said to be in conformity with law.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the provisions as contained u/s 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, the report submitted by the District Probation Officer, the medical examination report of the victim and the period present delinquent remained in child care home, 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 11.2.2022 and the appellate court dated 24.6.2022 are, hereby, set aside and the present criminal revision is hereby, allowed.

¶14

It is directed that delinquent/applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case on executing person bond by the revisionist (mother of the delinquent) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board concerned on following conditions :-

¶15

(i) The natural guardian/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.

¶16

(ii) The natural guardian/mother will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juvenile will pursue his study at

¶17

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 natural guardian/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 :- 21.8.2023 S.K.S.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SINGH 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

X Juvenil Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

A Vs State of U.P. and Another

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