Dismissed

Master X. Juvenile v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jun 2023CRLR/823/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision challenged the rejection of bail for a juvenile accused of grave offences. The Court held that juveniles with criminal proclivities may be detained in an observation home rather than released on bail, citing the need for social reintegration and protection from bad company.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; Court/Board directed to expedite hearing.

Master X. Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:127169

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 823 of 2023

¶4

Revisionist :- Master X. Juvenile Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Vishal Mohan Gupta,Ali Hasan,Manish Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abida Syed

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State-respondents.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to set aside the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Nagar dated 14.10.2022 and to further set aside the order of the Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POSCO Act, Kanpur Nagar passed on 10.01.2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 2022 affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, kanpur Nagar and declining bail to the juvenile in a matter arising out of Case Crime No. 523 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 420, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the impugned orders have been passed in an arbitrary manner on the basis of conjectures ignoring the principles of law applicable in the matter of bail to the juveniles, hence are liable to be set aside. The Juvenile Justice Board and the learned appellate Court have declined bail to the juvenile on the basis of observation as if the revisionist had committed the crime and is guilty; there has not been any eye-witness account to show the involvement of the accused in the offence.

¶9

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that first information report was lodged against unknown persons and name of the applicant was disclosed by the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The prosecutrix was a consenting party and friend of the prosecutrix facilitated the prosecutrix to meet with the juvenile. It is submitted that no sign of any kind of injury observed on the person of the prosecutrix at the time of her medical examination. It is also submitted that so far as the criminal history of the juvenile is concerned he was implicated

¶10

in four cases simultaneously with the present case and thereafter in another case numbered as Crime No.233 of 2021 under Section 323, 307, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act. It is submitted that court while passing the impugned order did not consider the report of the D.P.O. Further it is submitted that vide supplementary affidavit the photo copy of the admit card of the revisionist along with examination scheme is filed and the revisionist is to appear in the said examination from 23.06.2023. It is further submitted that the report of the District Probation Officer on which the courts below depended upon, did not say that the juvenile had any strained relations with his family, friends or in school; the observation that he may come in contact with any criminal or may get exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger is unfounded; in the end, it is contended that juvenile deserves to be released on bail.

¶11

The bail is opposed by the learned AGA for the State, inter alia on the grounds that there has been enough of material to prima facie show the involvement of the present revisionist in the crime. It is submitted that so far as the facts and circumstances of the case are concerned the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. made serious allegations against the revisionist. She also corroborated her earlier statement in her subsequent statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The revisionist has criminal history of five cases to his credit and it is clear that after remaining on bail on four criminal cases pertaining to the year 2019 he again committed an offence under Section 307 of IPC. The report of D.P.O. is properly considered by the court below. Therefore, the present revision deserves to be rejected.

¶12

Admittedly, in this case, the revisionist was not named in the FIR but his name was disclosed by the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which she made serious allegations against him. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix stated that the revisionist threatened her that he has committed three murder and he is a hard core criminal. The revisionist tortured her physically and committed rape upon her and stated that he had visited jail twice and thrice. The following criminal history was reported with regard to the revisionist:-

¶13

(i) Case Crime No.237 of 2019, under Section 147, 323, 506 of IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, Prayagraj

¶14

(ii) Case Crime No.312 of 2019, under Section 392 of IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, Prayagraj

¶15

(iii) Case Crime No.314 of 2019, under Section 147, 386, 504, 506, 427, P.S. Civil Lines, Prayagraj

¶16

(iv) Case Crime No.316 of 2019, under Section 4, 5 of Explosive Substance Act, P.S. Civil Lines, Prayagraj

¶17

(v) Case Crime No.233 of 2021, under Section 323, 307, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Jhunsi, Prayagraj

¶18

This discloses that four cases pertains to the year 2019 and after releasing on bail having the benefit of being juvenile the revisionist again committed offence of Case Crime No.233/2021 under Sections 323, 307, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Jhunsi, District Prayagraj. The report of the D.P.O. also indicates that the criminal nature of revisionist was due to company of bad elements and he needs counseling.

¶19

In Om Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan and another; (2012) 5 SCC 201 , the Apex Court observed that the Juvenile Justice Act was enacted with a laudable object of providing a separate forum or a special court for holding trial of juvenile as it was felt that child become delinquent by force of circumstance and not by choice and hence they need to be treated with care and sensitivity while dealing and trying cases involving criminal offence. It was further observed that when an accused is involved in grave and serious offence which he committed in a well planned manner reflecting his maturity of mind the court ought to be more careful. It may be noted that the Apex Court gave aforesaid view in the background of facts that age of the juvenile determined by the courts below was not free from doubts. In those peculiar circumstances, the Apex Court commanded attention of the Courts that where accused commited grave and heinous offence and thereafter he attempted to take statutory shelter under the guise of being a minor, a casual or cavalier approach while recording his age, is not acceptable. Although this observation of the Apex Court, bringing into focus the nature of crime being material one, came in the background of the facts of that case, but nevertheless it highlights the fact that gravity of offence remains an important factor.

¶20

In Mangesh Rajbhar vs. State of U.P. and Another; 2018 (2) ACR 1941 , It is observed that:-

¶21

"15. In the light of above statutory provision bail prayer of the juvenile

¶22

revisionist has to be considered on the surrounding facts and circumstances. Merely by declaration of being a juvenile does not entitle a juvenile in conflict with law to be released on bail as a matter of right. The Act has a solemn purpose to achieve betterment of juvenile offenders but it is not a shelter home for those juvenile offenders who have got criminal proclivities and a criminal psychology. It has a reformative approach but does not completely shun retributive theory. Legislature has preserved larger interest of society even in cases of bail to a juvenile. The Act seeks to achieve moral physical and psychological betterment of juvenile offender and therefore if, it is found that the ends of justice will be defeated or that goal desired by the legislature can be achieved by detaining a juvenile offender in a juvenile home, bail can be denied to him. This is perceptible from phraseology of section 12 itself. Legislature in its wisdom has therefore carved out exceptions to the rule of bail to a juvenile."

¶23

This thing should be kept in mind that aim and object of the Act is to ensure proper care, protection, development treatment and social reintegration of child, in difficult circumstances by adopting child friendly procedures. Under the 'Act' the moment child alleged to be in conflict with law is apprehended (not arrested), he is to be placed under the charge of the child welfare police officer (not merely a police officer) and is not be lodged in police lockup or jail and if required may be sent to 'observation home'. Even while the Board chooses to exercise its power (of bail) under Section 12(1), it may place such child under the supervision of probation officer and may not release him on surety bonds. In my view, in certain circumstances, the protective custody in observation home may be better than any other custody or release.

¶24

It cannot be denied that the juvenile if released, may fall in the same hands and in the same environs from which he needs to be rescued for his own welfare.

¶25

The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶26

The Court/concerned Board is directed to expedite the hearing and conclude the same at the earliest without getting influenced by any of the observations made in this order.

¶27

Order Date :- 16.6.2023 Mohit

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Master X. Juvenile v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Master X. Juvenile 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Shakeel @ Baba Vs State of U.P.

Sangeeta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Achal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Irfan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bablu Urf Udaybhan Singh Vs State of U.P.