Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sangeeta Chandra, J.
Raja (Minor) - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1113 of 2017
Decided On : 04-05-2017
Bail Application - Juvenile Justice Act - 4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act - 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - 376 IPC - 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act - 39 of the Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P. - 2006 CrLJ 1373
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist filed a Criminal Revision challenging the rejection of his bail application and criminal appeal by the lower courts. The revisionist argued that the courts failed to consider the provision of section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which provides for bail of juveniles in conflict with the law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the release on bail of the revisionist would defeat the ends of justice, considering the gravity of the offense and the impact on the victim. The court emphasized the need for justice for both the accused and the victim, ultimately dismissing the criminal revision.
Issues: The key issue was whether the revisionist, a juvenile in conflict with the law, should be granted bail under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, despite the gravity of the offense and the impact on the victim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, emphasizing that the release on bail of a juvenile in conflict with the law may be denied if it is likely to bring the juvenile into association with known criminals, expose the juvenile to danger, or defeat the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The criminal revision was dismissed, upholding the lower courts' decision to reject the bail application of the revisionist.
Sangeeta Chandra, J.
This Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the order dated 16.02.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Etah in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2017 [Raja (Minor) v. State of U.P.] and also the order dated 13.01.2017 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Etah in Bail Application No. 02 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 804 of 2016, under sections 376 IPC and 4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Jalesar, District Etah, whereby the bail application of the revisionist has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the revisionist has stated that while rejecting the bail application and criminal appeal of the revisionist, the learned courts below have failed to taken into account the provision of section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Yadav (Juvenile Delinquent) v. State of U.P decided on 27.11.2014 and the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ranjeet Yadav v. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2015 (7) ADJ 65 and stated that the gravity of the offence cannot be the basis for determining the grant or rejection of bail application by the learned courts below, in case of a juvenile found in conflict with the law.
4. The provision of bail for a juvenile is given under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which reads as under:
"12. Bail of juvenile.- (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person 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.
(2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer in charge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board.
(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order."
5. This Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Yadav (supra) has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P., 2013 (11) SCC 193, wherein the Supreme Court with regard to bail to juvenile observed as under:
"39. The provision dealing with bail (Section 12 of the Act) places the burden for denying bail on the prosecution. Ordinarily, a juvenile in conflict with law shall be released on bail, but he may 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."
6. In accordance with section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the grounds which may be considered while declining the bail to a juvenile in conflict with law are as follows:
1. If there appears reasonable grounds for believing that release is likely to bring the juvenile in conflict with law into association with any known criminal, or
2. If there appears reasonable grounds for believing that release is likely to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
