Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.
Juvenile ‘X’ through his Father – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 1693 of 2021
Decided On : 22-02-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 26, 302 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 3, 12, 12(1) , 13(1)(ii) , 17, 18 , 102 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 - Rule 2(xvii) – Offence of Murder - Revisionist submitted that revisionist was 15 years 6 months 18 days old at time of incident as per High School Certificate - Juvenile Justice Board has declared revisionist as juvenile vide order and no proceeding is pending against order - It has been further submitted that revisionist has been falsely implicated in present case.
Findings of the Court - Court is not satisfied with reasoning and conclusion of Appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board in impugned judgment and order - Juvenile Justice Board as well as Appellate Court have not properly appreciated mandatory provisions of Section 12 of "JJ Act, 2015" as well as other provisions in relation to juvenile 'X' and have declined to grant bail merely on basis of unfounded apprehension - In absence of any material or evidence of reasonable grounds, it cannot be said that his release would defeat ends of justice and have failed to give reasons on three contingencies for declining bail to revisionist - Findings recorded by Juvenile Justice Board as well as Appellate Court are based on heinousness of offence, therefore, order passed by Juvenile Justice Board and judgment passed by Appellate Court are not sustainable.
Result - Criminal revision allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.
1. Heard Sri. Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri. Manoj Kumar Dwivedi learned A.G.A. for the State. Despite the service of notice, no one has appeared for opposite party no. 2.
2. The Present Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 102 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “JJ Act, 2015”) against the judgment dated 2.4.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Bagpat, in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2020, whereby the appellate court has rejected the Criminal appeal and affirmed the order dated 24.2.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Bagpat. The Juvenile Justice Board has rejected the bail application of the revisionist, which has been filed by his natural guardian/father, under Section 12 of “JJ Act, 2015” in Misc. Case No. 13 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 117 of 2020 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “I.P.C.”) Police Station Baraut, District Bagpat.
3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 2.4.2021 and 24.2.2021 passed by the Appellate Court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board, the revisionist through his father has preferred the instant criminal revision before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist was 15 years 6 months 18 days old at the time of the incident as per High School Certificate. The Juvenile Justice Board has declared the revisionist as juvenile vide order dated 17.2.2021 and no proceeding is pending against the order. It has been further submitted that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case.
5. It is further submitted that the revisionist is not named in the first information report, and the role of exhortation has been assigned to the revisionist by the eye witness Govind, during the investigation. As per FIR dated 14.2.2020, on 14.2.2020 Gulveer aged about 35 years, nephew (Banja) of the first informant was standing along with his elder brother Amit and cousin Govinda near a vehicle, within the premises of the college. At the same time, Anshul Pawar and two unknown persons came after parking their motorcycle near the gate of the college. After calling Gulveer towards the gate, one of them took out a pistol and shot Gulveer at 12:45 P.M. The bullet hit his chest and he fell. After being shot, all three fled towards Chhaprauli on a motorcycle. Amit and others persons took the injured to Baraut Hospital. He was referred to Meerut thereby and died en-route to the Hospital.
6. It is further submitted that the finding recorded by the court below is against the social information report and is based on surmises and conjectures. It has been further submitted that there is no evidence to show that if the revisionist is released on bail, his 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. No such findings were recorded as to how he will come in contact with known criminals and how he will be exposed to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The revisionist is in protective custody in an observation home since 15.2.2020.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist has no criminal antecedent to his credit except the present case and is not a previous convict nor is he associated with any kind of unsocial or criminal activities. There is no report regarding any previous criminal antecedents of the family of the revisionist. The natural guardian/father of the revisionist has given an undertaking that if the revisionist is released on bail, he will keep him in his custody and look after him properly and has assured on behalf of the juvenile that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make the juvenile available before
Point of Law - It is necessary to point out that identity of the juvenile in the present matter has been disclosed in impugned judgment and order which violates the right to privacy and confidentiali....
Bail to juvenile delinquent – Gravity of offence is not a relevant consideration for declining bail to juvenile.
Juveniles are entitled to bail unless there is clear evidence of potential harm or criminal association, regardless of the offense's severity.
Juveniles are entitled to bail unless there is clear evidence of potential harm or criminal association, regardless of the severity of the alleged offense.
Identity of the juvenile shall not be disclosed.
Juvenile disentitled to bail on account of his case falling under each of the three exceptions enumerated in the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 12, for which no reason has been indicated.
Point of law: The rule in Section 12(1) of the Act is in favour of bail always to a juvenile/ child in conflict with law except when the case falls into one or the other categories denial contemplate....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Juvenile Justice Board must consider the mandatory provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and make an objective assessment based on reason....
The court established that under the Juvenile Justice Act, a juvenile is entitled to bail as a matter of course unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that their release would pose a danger t....
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
