Allowed

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

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2024CRLR/1567/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision was allowed. The High Court restored bail to the juvenile revisionist, setting aside the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and Children's Court, holding that no material existed to justify continued detention under Section 12(1) of the JJ Act, 2015.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 16.01.2024 and 19.02.2024 were set aside, and the revisionist was granted bail on a personal bond with two tolerable sureties.

Juvenile X vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:131695

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1567 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Juvenile X Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Nasira Adil,Sudhakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of O.P. Nos. 3 and 4.

¶7

Heard Mrs. Nasira Adil, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rajendra Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶8

The present revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 19.02.2024 passed by Juvenile Court, Auraiya dismissing Crl. Appeal No. 02 of 2024 (Alok @ Mantu vs. State of U.P. and others) filed against the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Auriya and confirming the aforesaid order dated 16.01.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Auriya whereby the bail application of revisionist filed in case crime No. 666 of 2023, under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, P.S. Auraiya, District Auraiya has been rejected.

¶9

On 07.11.2023, revisionist has been declared juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board, Auraiya (in short, 'Board'). On 16.01.2024 his bail application was rejected by Juvenile Justice Board, Auraiya. Thereafter revisionist preferred appeal before Children's Court, Auraiya against bail rejection order passed by the Board dated 16.01.2024, which was also dismissed by the Children's Court on 19.02.2024. By way of present revision, revisionist challenged both the orders dated 16.01.2024 passed by the Board and 19.02.2024 passed by the lower appellate court.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist is admittedly a juvenile below 18 years of age and however, as per allegation, he committed rape upon a minor girl aged above 14 years but entire allegations levelled against the revisionist is totally false.

¶11

She further submitted that as per provision of Section 12(1), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, a juvenile shall be released on bail but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶12

She further submitted that there is no material available on record including the report of DPO, that after release on bail, there is likelihood that revisionist would come into contact with some known criminal or to be exposed to any known criminal to moral, physical or psychological danger.

¶13

She further submitted that considering the age of the revisionist and the fact that from perusal of the statement of the victim recorded during investigation, it appears that she was consenting party, it cannot be said that the release of the revisionist would defeat the ends of justice and, therefore, the orders passed by the juvenile justice board and lower appellate court are illegal and therefore, both the orders are liable to be set aside and revisionist be released on bail.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA submitted that allegations levelled against the revisionist are quite serious and victim was hardly aged about 14 years old girl and she stated in her statement that revisionist committed rape upon her but could not dispute the fact that there is no allegation of forceful rape and revisionist is juvenile and he is not having any previous criminal history.

¶15

He further could not dispute the fact that there is no material available on record on the basis of which, it can be said that after release on bail, revisionist will come into close association with any known criminal.

¶16

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶17

From the record, it reflects that however, as per allegation, revisionist committed rape upon a minor girl aged about 14 years but it reflects that revisionist has been declared juvenile and as per Section 12(1) of the J.J. Act, 2015, a juvenile shall be released on bail unless and until there is material available on record, which can show that after released on bail, he will come into close association with any known criminal and his release will defeat the ends of justice.

¶18

From the material available on record including the DPO report, it could not be reflected that after release of revisionist, he will come into close association with any known criminal. Further, after considering the fact that there is no allegation of forceful rape, it cannot be said that his release would defeat the ends of justice. It appears, both the courts below failed to properly analyse the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

¶19

In view of the above, the revision stands allowed . Both the impugned orders dated 16.01.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Auriya and 19.02.2024 passed by Children's Court, Auraiya are hereby set aside.

¶20

Let the revisionist- (Juvenile) "X" son of "Y" through his guardian "Y" son of Radheshyam be released on bail in the aforesaid criminal case and be given into his custody on furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board concerned on the following conditions.

¶21

(i)That, father- "Y" son of Radheshyam/ guardian of the revisionist will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail, the juvenile will not be permitted to go into contact or association with any known or unknown criminal or exposed to any moral or physical danger and will not indulge in any criminal activity and he will make best effort for improvement of juvenile's carrier.

¶22

(ii)That the revisionist and his aforesaid father/ guardian shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶23

Order Date :- 13.8.2024 KK Patel

¶24

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile X 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hariom Trigunayat vs State of Up Another

Dheeraj Kumar Yadav vs State of Up and Another

Dheeraj Kumar Yadav vs State of Up and Another

Indrajeet and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another

Man Singh and 9 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Anju Verma vs State of U.P. and Another