Back
2019 Supreme(All) 516
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
AMAN @ FAUZI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1107 of 2018
Decided on : 24-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Suresh Pratap Singh, Adv., Vidit Khanna, Adv., Swati Agrawal, Adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail to a juvenile should consider the specific criteria outlined in the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and should not be solely based on the seriousness of the offense.
Headnote:
Juvenile - Bail Application - Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, Section 302 I.P.C. - Section 12, Section 15, Section 18(3) - The court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order rejecting bail, granting bail to the juvenile with certain conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a juvenile, filed an appeal against the rejection of his bail application in a case under section 302 I.P.C. The appellant argued that he was falsely implicated and entitled to bail as there was no direct evidence against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the case was based on circumstantial evidence and there was no direct evidence implicating the juvenile. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and granted bail to the juvenile with certain conditions.
Issues: The issues involved the rejection of the juvenile's bail application based on the seriousness of the offense and the assessment of the juvenile's mental and physical capacity to understand the consequences of the offense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, particularly Section 12, Section 15, and Section 18(3), and emphasized that the grant of bail to the juvenile should not be based solely on the seriousness of the offense. The court also highlighted the requirement for a preliminary inquiry into the juvenile's mental and physical capacity before transferring the trial to the Children Court.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and bail was granted to the juvenile with specific conditions.
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Shri Jitendra Prasad, Advocate holding brief of Shri Vidit Khanna, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Vaibhavi, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. This appeal has been filed by juvenile Aman @ Fauzi against the order dated 07.02.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC Court no. 1, Special Judge (POCSO Act) in Bail Application No. 150 of 2018 (Juvenile Justice Act, 2012) arising out of case no. 77 of 2017, under section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Sherkot, District - Bijnor whereby the bail of the juvenile has been rejected by the learned court below.
3. The appellant has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the F.I.R. was against unknown persons while passing the order, the learned court below did not consider the report of District Probation Officer nor the psychologist report. There is no direct evidence against the appellant, the impugned order is against the facts and evidence. The juvenile has been falsely implicated and hence he was entitled for bail, therefore, the impugned order dated 07.02.2018 rejecting bail of the juvenile Aman @ Fauzi is liable to be set aside.
4. From perusal of F.I.R. it appears that in respect of an incident dated 06.06.2017 at 4:30 p.m., the F.I.R. was lodged on 07.06.2017 in which no one was named and it was stated in F.I.R. that the mother of the informant had gone to jungle at 4:30 p.m. to collect fodder and she did not return till 7:30 p.m. A rigorous search was made but she could not be traced that day. Again, a rigorous search was made next day in the morning, when the informant side reached the sugarcane field of Virendra his mother was found dead there, somebody had caused injury of sickle in her abdomen.
5. Subsequently in the statement of one witness Mukesh Kumar given before the I.O., it came that he saw the juvenile going from the side of the field of Krishna and he was looking very disturb and when he was asked about the mother of the informant he did not say any thing and ran away from there. When the informant went to his house, he was found missing and his mother told that he was missing from the last 10 days. On this basis he became the prime suspect and whole case was investigated in that light and after the post-mortem and all other formalities undertaken by the IO a charge-sheet was filed against the juvenile under section 302 I.P.C.
6. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned court has remarked the Juvenile Justice Board finding that the age of the juvenile to be more than 16 years transferred the case of the juvenile for trial under section 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. It has also been mentioned that on the date of the incident, the age of the juvenile was determined to be 16 years and 11 months and in the impugned order the learned court has made observation that the juvenile was healthy physically and mentally fit and he was fully aware of the consequences of the commission of offence, that offence was heinous in nature and also giving the finding that on his being released on bail the ends of justice may be defeated, the bail application of juvenile was rejected.
7. The report of the Probation Officer is on record and there is nothing adverse in the report on the basis of which an adverse inference may be drawn against him and his bail application may be rejected.
8. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed and has contended that the learned trial court has rightly rejected the bail application on the basis of sufficient evidence available on record against the accused-appellant.
9. Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 by the amended Act the criteria for bail under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act has not been changed and provision has been made under Section 12 of the Act that when any person accused of a bailable or a non-bailable offence and apparently a juvenile, is arrested
