Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Fazil @ Avesh - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 279 of 2018
Decided On : 09-04-2018
Bail - Juvenile Justice - Sections 354B, 323, 324, 506 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act - [12] - [354B, 323, 324, 506 IPC, Section 8 of POCSO Act] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and the parameters for granting bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with the law. The court highlighted the need for evidence showing that the juvenile, if released on bail, would come into association with known criminals or be exposed to moral, physical, or psychological danger. The court also emphasized the importance of considering the gravity of the offence and its impact on society in deciding whether to grant bail to a juvenile. The court's decision to grant bail was based on the lack of evidence showing that the juvenile would be at risk if released, and the doubts raised about the prosecution's case.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist, a juvenile, sought bail in a case involving allegations of assault and offences under Sections 354B, 323, 324, 506 IPC, and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution relied on a medico-legal report and the statement of the victim to oppose bail. The revisionist's counsel argued that the courts below did not consider relevant evidence, including a report from the District Probation Officer, and misconstrued the nature of the offence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to show that the juvenile, if released on bail, would come into association with known criminals or be exposed to moral, physical, or psychological danger. The court also raised doubts about the prosecution's case, noting inconsistencies in the FIR and the statement of the victim. The court concluded that the revisionist, being a first-time offender, should not be deprived of the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act based solely on the level of the alleged offence.
Issues: The key issues were whether the revisionist should be granted bail as a juvenile in a case involving serious allegations, and whether the prosecution's case raised reasonable doubts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence showing that the juvenile would be at risk if released on bail, and the doubts raised about the prosecution's case. The court emphasized the need to consider the parameters for granting bail to a juvenile, including the gravity of the offence and its impact on society.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revisionist's bail application, setting aside the orders of the lower courts and imposing conditions for the revisionist's release on bail.
J.J. MUNIR, J.
1. Heard Sri N.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Vikas Tiwari appearing for O.P.No.2 and Sri Kamal Singh Yadav, learned AGA appearing for the State.
2. This criminal revision is directed against an order of Sri Pushker Upadhyay, Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, 1st, Jhansi dated 01.12.2017 dismissing the criminal appeal no. 12/2017 and affirming an order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Jhansi dated 27.10.2017 passed in Bail Application No. 69/2017 relating to Case Crime No. 396 of 2016, under Sections 354B, 323, 324, 506 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, P.S. Mauranipur, District Jhansi refusing bail to the applicant who claimed as a juvenile under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that the first informant-opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR with regard to an occurrence dated 20.09.2016 at 9:00 in the evening hours saying that his daughters Rakhi and Nishi besides his wife Usha had all gone to the Mela at Jalvihar and were proceeding to the Mela ground in Mauranipur when they were stopped on way by the revisionist along with three unknown persons allegedly telling them that they should come along with him to enjoy the Mela, to which the informant's daughter and wife protested telling the revisionist not to bother them. It is further said in the FIR that the informant's elder daughter aged about 17 years and the younger Nishi aged about 16 years were together. The revisionist with an intention to outrage their modesty caught hold of the younger daughter's hand that led the daughters to raise alarm. In consequence, Shashi Kant, Kamlesh and others came by and seeing that the revisionist and his companion beat up the informant's daughter and made good their escape threatening them with death. Nothing else was said in the FIR that was registered on 21.09.2016 at about five minutes past noon whereas the occurrence had allegedly taken place on 20.09.2016 at 9:00 p.m.
4. The prosecution relied upon a medico-legal report of the injuries sustained in the assault by the younger daughter Km. Nishi who was examined for her injuries on 21.09.2016 at 17 minutes past noon where the doctor noticed an incised wound, muscle deep on the side of the forearm, 12 cm below the left elbow, and, another linear abrasion on the left palm. Both injuries were opined to be simple in nature caused by a sharp object. The report clearly mentioned that time of injuries is about two days old. A copy of the injury report is annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit in support of the revision.
5. The revisionist was arrested and sent to jail where he is in custody since 09.01.2017. The revisionist was declared a juvenile by an order of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act vide order dated 31.07.2017.
6. The revisionist moved for bail as a juvenile to the Juvenile Justice Board through Bail Application No. 69 of 2017 which came to be rejected by an order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jhansi.
7. Aggrieved by the order of Juvenile Justice Board rejecting his bail application the revisionist preferred an appeal under Section 101(5) of the Act to the Sessions Judge, Jhansi that was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 12/2017 and came up for determination before the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court 1st, Jhansi on 01.12.2017 and was dismissed.
8. Aggrieved by the refusal of bail by the two courts below, this revision has been preferred by the Juvenile.
9. Sri N.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that courts below have not assessed the revisionist's prayer for bail within the well established parameters of section 12 of the Act, which reads as under:
"Section 12 - Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law:
(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committ
AI
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
