Allowed

Juvenile 'X' Thru. His Father Shri Narendra Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2023CRLR/316/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision was preferred by a juvenile against bail rejection orders by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Sessions Judge. The High Court allowed the revision, holding gravity of offence is not a ground for bail refusal under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

What did the court decide?

The impugned bail rejection orders were set aside and the revisionist was granted bail on personal bond and undertaking.

Juvenile 'X' Thru. His Father Shri Narendra Pandey Vs… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 316 of 2023

¶3

Revisionist :- Juvenile 'X' Thru. His Father Shri Narendra Pandey

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Revisionist :- Pawan Kumar Tiwari,Aditya Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Shekhar Shukla,Parijat Mishra Belavra

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Instant Criminal Revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Chilren), Act, 2015 is preferred against the order dated 03.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court Room No. 4, District-Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2023 against the order dated 22.12.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur by which the bail application of the revisionist in case crime No. 176 of 2022, under Section 147, 148, 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station-Munshiganj, District-Amethi has been rejected.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is an innocent person and he has falsely and wrongly been implicated in the present case by the complainant due to enmity. It is further submitted that during the pendency of this revision two co-accused has been released on bail vide orders dated 30.05.2023 and 12.07.2023 passed in Criminal Revision

¶9

No. 404 of 2023 and Criminal Revision No. 412 of 2023 respectively. It is next submitted that the role of present revisionist is of beating the deceased with stick on his hand and except that no any specific role has been assigned to the present revisionist. It is next contended that the revisionist has no prior criminal history. In these circumstances, the revisionist is also entitled to be released on bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the above contentions but conceded that the revisionist has is not having any criminal history and two co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

¶12

The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that it is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. It has been submitted that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, prayer for bail of a juvenile can be rejected 'if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger of that his release would defeat the ends of justice'.

¶13

This Court has to see whether the opinion of the appellate

¶14

Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned orders are in consonance with the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015. Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile, which are as follows:

¶15

(1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or

¶16

(2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or

¶17

(3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice?

¶18

Admittedly, gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail under Section 12 of the Act.

¶19

It has further been submitted that gravity of the offence could not be relevant for refusing grant of bail to the juvenile, as has been held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P., 2010 (68) ACC 616 and it has been a consistent view of various courts. It has also been submitted that there exists no material to justify rejection of bail on the grounds envisaged by Section 12 of the Act.

¶20

In view of the above, this revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.12.2022 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur in Case Crime No.176 of 2022, under

¶21

Sections 147, 148, 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Munshiganj,

¶22

District Amethi as well as order dated 03.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2023 are hereby set aside .

¶23

Let the revisionist be released on bail in Criminal Appeal No.04 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.176 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Munshiganj, District Amethi, on furnishing of a personal bond alongwith an undertaking on behalf of revisionist by his legal guardian/father to the effect that he will not permit the revisionist to come in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice and provide no occasion to the revisionist whereby his release on bail would defeat the ends of justice, by his legal guardian/father and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to following conditions :-

¶24

(1) Revisionist will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail.

¶25

(2) Revisionist will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court.

¶26

(3) Revisionist shall remain present, in person, before the Board

¶27

on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case; (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Board that absence of the revisionist is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Board to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶28

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and Board will be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶29

(Renu Agarwal,J.)

¶30

Order Date :- 18.7.2023

¶31

Karan

¶32

Digitally signed by :- KUMAR KARAN RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Juvenile 'X' Thru. His Father Shri Narendra Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile 'X' Thru. His Father Shri Narendra Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohini Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home, Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Jitendra Kumar Singh (According to Prosecution Jitendra Kumar, Ward Boy) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shiv Prakash @ Nanhakke Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dost Mohammad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, U.P. Lucknow and Another

Dhruv Bharti and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

Aditya Kumar @ Aditya Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another