Allowed

X- Juvenile v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2024CRLR/3277/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision against orders refusing bail to a juvenile accused of murder. Relying on Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the Court found no adverse report from the District Probation Officer and noted that co-accused had been released. The impugned orders were set aside, and the juvenile was released on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his father with two sureties, subject to conditions regarding evidence, adjournments, and court attendance.

X- Juvenile vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:194733

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3277 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- X- Juvenile Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anish Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

1-The present criminal revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.05.2024 passed by learned Juvenile Court/Special Court No. 3, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2024 ('X' vs. State of U.P.) and against order dated 08.01.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut in Bail Application No. 173/2023 (State vs. 'X') arising out of Case Crime No. 192 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201 and 34 I.P.C., Police Station Jani, District Meerut, whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer of bail of accused-revisionist.

¶7

2-Despite service of notice upon the complainant/informant, no one has put in appearance on his behalf. Hence this Court proceeds to hear this matter on merit.

¶8

3-Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶9

4-As per the prosecution case in brief, a missing report was lodged by the complainant with regard to missing of his son Manoj since 21.06.2023. Thereafter, on 28.06.2023, informant lodged a first information report under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., against Pawan Goswami @ Buddha, Akash @ Golu Rathi and present revisionist alleging inter alia that he has suspicious that his son has been murdered by the named accused persons.

¶10

5-Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 21.06.2023 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 24.04.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 17 years 03 months and 28 days on the date of alleged incident. It is next submitted that aforesaid order declaring the revisionist as juvenile has attained finality because the same has not been challenged by the opposite party No.2. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 01.07.2023.

¶11

6-As to the offence alleged, it is submitted that the revisionist has falsely been implicated in the case with ulterior motive. In this regard, it is further stated that proper investigation was not conducted by the police and thus the revisionist had wrongly been charged with the offence. Much emphasis has been given by contending that there is no recovery of any incriminating material from the possession of the revisionist whereas other co-accused persons, namely, Akash @ Golu Rathi, from whose pointing out dead body of the deceased was recovered and Pawan Goswami @ Buddha, who are adult have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orderds dated 04.07.2024 and 07.11.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 19501 of 2024 and 37401 of 2024 respectively.

¶12

7-It is further being emphasized that the revisionist does not have any criminal antecedent to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no material on record for believing that the release of revisionist is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, psychological danger, therefore, aforesaid impugned orders are not sustainable and liable to be set aside and revisionist is entitled to be released on bail in view of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015.

¶13

8-Learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the present revision. It has thus been submitted, merely because the revisionist is a

¶14

juvenile it would not entitle him to bail without going into the gravity of the offence, the nature of the crime. It is also contended that the bail sought for has been rightly refused in view of Section 12(1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015.

¶15

9-Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is no adverse report of District Probation Officer, Meerut against the revisionist. This Court also finds that the case of present revisionist stands on better footing than that of co-accused Akash @ Golu Rathi who has been granted bail, as noted above.

¶16

10-The Court has to see whether the opinion of the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and 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 aforesaid Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile. They are:-

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(iii) that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶20

11-Considering the facts of the case as noted above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are erroneous and cannot be sustained. The aforesaid impugned orders dated 23.05.2024 and 08.01.2024 are hereby set aside.

¶21

12-Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed .

¶22

13-Let the revisionist- X-Juvenile involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his father, namely, Bagesh Giri who is his natural guardian with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of

¶23

the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶24

(i) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;

¶25

(ii) The revisionist through guardian shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;

¶26

(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

Order Date :- 12.12.2024 Saurabh

¶28

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

X- Juvenile v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

X- Juvenile 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

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Brijesh vs State of U.P.

Sonu Kashyap vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhola and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shyama Devi vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Khayali Pal vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

First Informant vs State of U.P. and 4 Others