The Court set aside bail rejection orders for a juvenile accused in a murder case, holding that gravity of offence is not a ground to deny bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Bail was granted subject to conditions.
Bail allowed; impugned orders set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:120407
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 810 of 2024
Revisionist :- Juvenile X Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated 31.01.2024 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Siddharth Nagar, in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No.57 of 2023 and the order dated 01.12.2023 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Siddharth Nagar in Misc. Case No.64 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.128 of 2023, under Section 302 I.P.C, Police Station Itwa, District Siddharth Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused, Jumman @ Nurul Huda, has been granted bail by this Court by following order:-
"Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.
FIR was lodged regarding commission of offence of murder against unknown accused.
Counsel for the applicant submits that during the investigation, it has come that the deceased was living in Bushra Poly Clinic of informant and the dead body of the deceased was recovered on one morning. The deceased used to sleep inside the clinic. He was the employee of informant and some unknown person caused his murder. The door was locked from inside and when it was opened the dead body was recovered. During investigation it was also found that the deceased was having affair with some girl of family of applicant and on account of aforesaid relationship of informant with the girl of family of the applicant, he was done to death by the applicant and other coaccused.
Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of blind murder and a case of circumstantial evidence and who was the girl and with whom the deceased was having illicit relationship has not been named. He has submitted that unless the aforesaid girl is named the chain of circumstances would not be completed. The implication of the applicant is based on a whatsapp message sent allegedly by the
deceased on the mobile phone belonging to the family of applicant. He has submitted that phone was not privately owned by any family member. The message was sent regarding mubarakbad of Eid and it was replied. There is not other evidence in the mobile phone to implicate the applicant. He has submitted that since the food of the deceased was supplied by the family of applicant, 28 calls have been found on the phone which are regarding the supply of food from the family of applicant. The applicant is in jail since 30.08.2023 and has no criminal history to his credit.
On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021; considering 5- 6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Jumman @ Nurul Huda, involved in Case Crime No. 128 of 2023, under Section- 302 IPC, Police Station- Itwa, DistrictSiddhartha Nagar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court
on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted."
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is a case of false implication. Even otherwise application is a juvenile. It is case of circumstantial evidence. No one was named in the FIR. The applicant is in jail since 30.8.2023. None of the grounds contemplated under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are available, to deny the bail to the applicant. Therefore, the impugned orders have been assailed as erroneous and contrary to law.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the present criminal revision. It is submitted, the incident reported is true and it is wrong to say that the allegations made against the applicant are false, and/are motivated. Also, reliance has been placed on the findings recorded in the bail rejection orders to submit that the instant revision may be dismissed.
It is not in dispute that the applicant is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Act. Under Section 12 of the Act, the prayer for bail of a juvenile may be rejected 'if there appear 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 or that his release would defeat the ends of justice'.
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 the Act. Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail may be refused to a juvenile offender. These are:-
(i) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or
(ii) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or
(iii) that his release would defeat the ends of justice?
Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the bail. It is not a relevant factor while considering to grant bail to the juvenile. It has been so held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu
Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB) . It has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions of this court.
Thus, it remains largely undisputed that the applicant - was a juvenile on the date of occurrence; does not appear to be prone to criminal proclivity or criminal psychology, in light of the observations of the D.P.O; does not have a criminal history; has been in confinement for an unduly long period of time, in as much as the trial has not concluded within time frame contemplated by the Act. Even otherwise, there does not appear to exist any factor or circumstance mentioned in section 12 of the Act as may dis-entitle the applicant to grant of bail, at this stage. The father of the applicant undertakes to address the statutory concerns expressed in section 12 of the Act, as to the safety and well being of the applicant, upon his release.
In view of the above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are in conflict with the settled principle in law, for the purpose of grant of bail and are erroneous and contrary to the law laid down by this court. Consequently, those orders cannot be sustained. The aforesaid impugned orders are hereby set aside.
In view of the observations made above, the present criminal revision is allowed . Let the applicant, Juvenile X, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail, on his furnishing personal bond with two sureties each of like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(ii) The applicant 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;
(iii) The applicant 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.
Order Date :- 26.7.2024 Ruchi Agrahari
Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether gravity of offence is a relevant factor for denying bail to a juvenile under Section 12 of the JJ Act?
Whether the impugned orders denying bail were contrary to settled principles regarding juvenile bail?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I.Referred¶15
Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021
Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P.Followed¶31
Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Juvenile X
State of U.P.
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
