Allowed

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

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2024CRLR/4522/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a criminal revision seeking bail for a juvenile declared a delinquent, setting aside lower court orders that had refused bail. The High Court held that the gravity of the offence is not a statutory ground for refusing bail to a juvenile under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, and since the specific statutory conditions for refusal were not met, bail was granted with strict

What did the court decide?

Revisionist released on bail on furnishing personal bond of mother with two sureties, subject to conditions regarding court attendance and non-interference with evidence.

Juvenile Delinquent X vs State of U.P. and… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:180908

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4522 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Juvenile Delinquent X Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Imtyaz Ahmad,Kalp Dev Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

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 12.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Court/Juvenile Court, Ghazipur in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2024 and against order dated 01.05.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur in Case Crime No. 164 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 IPC, police station Khanpur, District Ghazipur, whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer of bail of accused-revisionist.

¶7

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

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

¶9

As per the prosecution case, in brief, complainant, who is uncle of the deceased Sandeep Nishad, lodged the first information report on 03.12.2023, under Sections 147, 148, 307 IPC against six accused persons, namely, Saurabh, Shivam, Ravi, present applicant (juvenile), Raj and Laldhari making allegation inter alia that on 03.12.2023, they have beaten Sandeep Nishad with axe and caused serious injuries to him.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 03.12.2023 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 05.04.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 14 years, 04 months and 24 days on the date of alleged incident. It is next submitted that aforesaid

¶11

order declaring the revisionist as juvenile has attained finality because the same has not been challenged. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 07.12.2023.

¶12

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 in the F.I.R., general role of assault has been assigned to all the six accused persons, out of whom, four accused persons, namely, Ravi Harijan, Laldhari, Shivam Kumar and Juvenile 'X' have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 14.05.2024, 22.05.2024, 01.10.2024 and 18.11.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 17546 of 2024, 16480 of 2024 and 35320 of 2024 and Criminal Revision No. 2410 of 2024, respectively, and the case of the revisionist stands on better footing than that of aforesaid accused persons.

¶13

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 Children) Act, 2015.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. representing the State of U.P. vehemently opposed the present revision by contending that injured/deceased Sandeep Nishad was badly beaten by all the accused persons with common intention. On 03.12.2023, injured Sandeep Nishad was admitted in hospital and he died on 28.01.2024. Since the deceased Sandeep Nishad was not in a position to give his statement as he was unconscious throughout, therefore, his statement was not recorded. However, referring the post mortem report, it is submitted that six injuries have been found on the body of the deceased. It has further been submitted that merely because the revisionist is a 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 Children) Act, 2015.

¶15

Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is true that a juvenile offender is not entitled as of

¶16

right to be enlarged on bail, irrespective of any other fact or circumstance, however, it also cannot be denied that in view of specific and special legislative intent and intervention, refusal of bail in the case of a juvenile may be made only for specific reasons and circumstance. Otherwise, a general legislative presumption does appear to exist under the scheme of the Act that the welfare of alleged juvenile offender would be better served without he being confined for long duration. Here, the revisionist has remained in juvenile home since 07.12.2023 against the maximum sentence of three years in case of conviction.

¶17

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:-

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail in Section 12 of the aforesaid Act. Though the prayer for bail of the revisionist has been opposed by learned counsel for the opposite parties/State, but could not demonstrate from the record that there existed any of the grounds on which bail application of a juvenile could be rejected keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

¶22

Considering the above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are erroneous and cannot be sustained. The aforesaid impugned orders dated 12.07.2024 and 01.05.2024 are hereby set aside.

¶23

Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed.

¶24

Let the revisionist Juvenile Delinquent X involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his mother, namely, Bala Devi, who is his natural guardian with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶25

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

¶26

(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;

¶27

(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.

¶28

Order Date :- 19.11.2024 Shubham

¶29

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile Delinquent X 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jitendra Kanaujia and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sripal @ Gussu vs State of Up Others

Gajodhar Prajapati vs State of Up

Mohd. Najim @ Nadeem and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Kuldeep @ Kuldeep Kumar and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Basant Lal vs State of U.P. and Another