Back
2019 Supreme(All) 557
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
Santosh - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. and another - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 5814 of 2018
Decided On : 02-05-2019
Anurag Sharma, Adv., Mohd Imdad Siddiqui, Adv., Sunil Kumar Singh, Adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act in granting bail to a juvenile-accused, emphasizing the need to consider the specific criteria and conditions outlined in the Act.
Headnote:
Juvenile - Bail Application - Juvenile Justice Act - Section 302, 307, 452 read with section 34 IPC - Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act - Section 15 and 18(3) of the Act
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed by juvenile Santosh against the rejection of his bail application by the VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge/Special Court POCSO Act/Children Court, Budaun in a case involving sections 302, 307, 452 read with section 34 IPC. The appellant challenged the order on the basis of illegality and violation of principles contained under section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the bail application was illegal and in violation of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, and accordingly allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and directing the release of the juvenile on bail.
Issues: The issues revolved around the application of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act in the context of the serious nature of the alleged offence and the association of the juvenile with known criminals.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the parameters for granting bail to a juvenile-accused under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act should consider the possibility of the juvenile being associated with known criminals, exposure to moral, physical or psychological danger, or the likelihood of defeating the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the juvenile, accused-appellant namely Santosh, was ordered to be released on bail with specific conditions and undertakings.
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the record.
2. This appeal has been filed by juvenile Santosh against the order dated 13.09.2018 passed by learned VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge/Special Court POCSO Act/Children Court, Budaun in Bail Application No. 2869 of 2018 (Santosh Vs. State of U.P.), in Case Crime No. 198 of 2018, under section 302, 307, 452 read with section 34 IPC, P.S. Dataganj, District Budaun, by which, bail application of juvenile has been rejected by the learned court below.
3. Aggrieved by said order, this juvenile appeal has been filed and the order has been challenged on the basis that same is illegal and has been passed without application of judicial mind and is in violation of principles contained under section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act. There was no report as such that juvenile was in association of his father or he was physically present at the time of incident which defeats the ends of justice. No cogent reason has been recorded while rejecting bail application of juvenile. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable under law and is liable to be set aside.
4. From perusal of FIR, it appears that criminal incident took place on 02.3.2018 at 5.00 p.m. and all the accused persons of same family were implicated in which juvenile was also implicated. It also appears that juvenile was assigned with lathi and it could be inferred that if any injury was caused, the same must have been caused by lathi. FIR also shows that other co-accused persons were father and uncle of juvenile.
5. The record also shows that on 16.8.2018, the Juvenile Justice Board, Budaun, passed an order in respect of juvenile that his age was found more than 16 years and considering his physical and mental capacity to understand the consequence of offence, his case was referred to Children Board, therefore, it is not disputed that juvenile was above 16 years, but below 18 years of age.
6. 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 or detained or is brought before a board then irrespective of the accusation he shall be released on bail or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit institution except when
1. if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminals or
2. that it will expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or
3. that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
7. It has been held by the supreme court in Dr. Subramaniam Swamy vs Raju, (2014) 86 AllCriC 637 that a juvenile has to be released on bail unless the court has a reasonable ground to believe that his release will bring him into association of some known criminal, or will expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.
8. Section 15 of the Amending Act only provides for transfer of a juvenile to the Children Court for trial as an adult. Where the child has attained the age of 16 years and has been alleged to have committed heinous offence, the Juvenile Justice Board is required to conduct a preliminary inquiry with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit offence, ability to understand the consequence of the offence and the circumstances in which the offence was committed considering their physical, psychological and mental status in commission of crime. Section 18(3) of the Act provides that after making the assessment under section 15, JJ Board comes to a conclusion that there is a need for trial of the child as an adult, the Board may pass an order for the transfer of the t
