Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. Munir, J.
Adil– Appellant
Vs.
State Of UP And 2 Other – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1597 of 2020
Decided On : 22-01-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2015 – Sections 101, 12 – Offence of Murder – Plea of Bail – Rejected – First Information Report was lodged, by the second opposite party, saying that the informant lives at Hindan Vihar, near Bilal Masjid. – His family stayed with him. – His daughter Aisha, aged about 15 years, was asleep at home, during the night hours. – At about 1 O’ Clock in the odd hours, his brother’s son, entered his house and stabbed his daughter. – His daughter sustained stab injuries to her abdomen and neck. – Distress call from his daughter led the second opposite party to notice the incident, whereupon, the revisionist made good his escape. – The police registered Case Crime under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601, Police Station, District – Revisionist was arrested. – Being a minor, he applied for bail to the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad. – The revisionist’s bail plea came up before the Board, and was rejected. – The revisionist, thereupon, appealed to Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2015 – Appeal numbered on 1 file of Sessions Judge as Criminal Appeal – Appeal came up before Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge for determination. – It was dismissed by a judgement and order of that date.
Finding of the court:
No doubt, in the case of a juvenile, bail is to be granted as a matter of course, but the Legislature has distinctly engrafted three exceptions to the rule of universal bail. – It is true that there is no evidence here to bring the petitioner's case in the first of the two exceptions to the rule, that is to say, the likelihood of the juvenile coming into association with any known criminal, or him being exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. – This spares the last clause of the exceptions to the rule, that is to say, the juvenile's release defeating the ends of justice. – It is true that merits of the case, as such, are not relevant. – But it is equally true that where the offence is so gruesome that it severely jolts the conscience of the society, or places the juvenile at risk of retribution, or sends a message that a dastardly offence may be committed by a juvenile, and yet his liberty, pending proceedings, cannot be curtailed, would certainly lead to ends of justice being defeated. – It is in this manner that the nature of the crime, the circumstances in which it is committed and other relevant things, have bearing on the right of the juvenile to be enlarged on bail. – It is not per se merits of the prosecution case against the juvenile, but the impact of the offence on society, circumstances in which the crime has been committed, which require consideration. – Here, the circumstances of the crime show that the revisionist, for whatever reason, entered the living quarters of his uncle (father’s brother), and stabbed his cousin, the victim, while the other family members were around. – He did so when the victim was asleep, at 1 O’ Clock in the night. – The evidence about the attack, that the medico-legal report shows, discloses a determined and dastardly attack, to do the victim to death. – There are nine incised wounds sustained by the victim, on various parts of her body, including the front of neck. – The manner and the circumstances in which the crime has been committed, places the tranquillity of the society at a serious level of threat. It sends out a message that family members as close as a cousin, cannot be trusted with something as precious as security of life, let alone limb. – The kind of conduct exhibited by the revisionist prima facie is certainly one where his release on bail, pending proceedings, in the considered opinion of this Court, would lead to ends of justice being defeated. – Court does not find it to be a fit case, where the orders impugned ought to be interfered with.
Result: Revision Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
1. This Revision is directed against an appellate order of the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur dated 30.10.2020, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2020 preferred by the revisionist, and affirming an order of the Juvenile Justice Board, denying bail, pending trial.
2. A First Information Report was lodged on 17.06.2019 at 19:05 hours, by the second opposite party, Mursaleen, saying that the informant lives at Hindan Vihar, near Bilal Masjid. His family stayed with him. On 16.06.2019, his daughter Aisha, aged about 15 years, was asleep at home, during the night hours. At about 1 O’ Clock in the odd hours, his brother’s son, Adil, entered his house and stabbed his daughter. His daughter sustained stab injuries to her abdomen and neck. The distress call from his daughter led the second opposite party to notice the incident, whereupon, the revisionist made good his escape. The police registered Case Crime No. 963 of 2019, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601, Police Station -Sihani Gate, District -Ghaziabad. The revisionist was arrested. Being a minor, he applied for bail to the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad. The revisionist’s bail plea came up before the Board on 13.03.2020, and was rejected. The revisionist, thereupon, appealed to the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 20152. The appeal aforesaid was numbered on 1 For short “IPC” 2 For short “the Act” the file of the learned Sessions Judge as Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2020. This appeal came up before the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, on 13.08.2020, for determination. It was dismissed by a judgement and order of that date.
3. Aggrieved, this revision has been filed.
4. Heard Mr. Azaz Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist, and Mr. S.S. Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State. No one appears on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3, despite service.
5. It is contended by Mr. Azaz Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist, that the revisionist is a minor, aged below 16 years. His date of birth, recorded in the Social Investigation Report, is 05.06.2005. Going by the aforesaid date of birth, the revisionist was aged 14 years and 9 months on the date of occurrence. It is made out that revisionist is a scholar, who is in the mainstream of regular education. He is a student of Class IX. In the event, he is subjected to institutional incarceration, he would come into contact with hardened criminals, which would undo the purpose for which the Act was enacted by the Legislature. Mr. Ahmad further argues that going by the fact that the revisionist is a young offender, aged a little less than 15 years, with no criminal background, ought not to be detained. Learned counsel has referred to the Social Investigation Report to show that the revisionist has a family, compromising his father at home, besides five siblings, two sisters and three brothers. All his siblings are pursuing their studies in various classes, from II to VIII. His mother passed way four years ago. It is impressed upon the Court that the revisionist is part of a cohesive family, comprising his father and other siblings, with whom he enjoys a friendly relationship. On the foot of these facts, learned counsel submits that he ought not be denied bail, going by the provision of Section 12(1) of the Act. It is urged by the learned counsel that Section 12(1) of the Act postulates bail as a matter of right to a juvenile, particularly one below the age of 16 years, unless his case falls in one of the three exceptions contemplated in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act. It is urged that the revisionist’s case does not fall in any of those exceptions. In support of his submissions, Mr. Ahmad has drawn the attention of this Court towards a decision in Amit v. State of U.P. & Another, 2016 (9
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
