Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
X (Minor) – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal Revision No.860 of 2022
Decided on : 21-03-2022
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 101 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 149, 302, 307, 323, 324, 354 and 506 - Revision against order – Order of Refusing Bail - Allegation that Ranjit Kumar and Mahendra Patel were coming back after attending call of nature and enroot they were ambushed by named accused persons - Co-accused Kailash Yadav is said to have been armed with axe whereas revisionist is said to have been armed with lathi and other co-accused persons were also attributed with respective weapons - whether case prima facie on merits against a child in conflict with law is there on the basis of material produced by the prosecution against him - If it is found that a prima facie case on the basis of material produced by the prosecution is there that would have led to a denial of a bail to an adult offender, in that case also the Rule in Section 12(1) of the Act mandates that bail is to be granted to a juvenile/ child in conflict with law except where his case falls into any of the three disentitling categories contemplated by the proviso – Para 21.
Finding of the Court: Juvenile disentitled to bail on account of his case falling under each of three exceptions enumerated in the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 12, for which no reason has been indicated - That finding, in both the orders impugned, is based on an ipse dixit, in one case of judge and in the other of the Board - Even if it be assumed that offence was committed in manner alleged, it would be rather strained logic to hold that release of juvenile on bail would lead to the ends of justice being defeated. Both the courts below have also overlooked statement of victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 CrPC and further the courts below have also not considered the radiological age of the victim as per the medical report.
Result: Revision and is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.02.2022 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act/Additional District and Session Judge, Varanai dismissing Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2022 (Vishal Yadav versus State of U.P.) filed under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ‘the Act’) and affirming the order dated 15.01.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Case Crime No. 195 of 2020, under Sections 147, 149, 302, 307, 323, 324, 354 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station Lohta, District Varanasi.
2. Sri Diwan Saifullah Khan, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that he does not want to file counter affidavit. Learned A.G.A. has also not filed counter affidavit.
3. Heard Sri Birendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Viabhav Aaanad, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Diwan Saifullah Khan, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is named in the F.I.R. allegedly lodged by Gauri Shankar Patel on 07.8.2020 for the incident said to have taken place on 06.8.2020 at 20.30 hours against six named persons including the revisionist and one unknown, with the allegation that Ranjit Kumar (son of the informant) and Mahendra Patel were coming back after attending call of nature and enroute they were ambushed by the named accused persons. Co-accused Kailash Yadav is said to have been armed with axe whereas the revisionist is said to have been armed with lathi and other co-accused persons were also attributed with respective weapons.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that from the F.I.R. it is not clear that there was any precise motive or mental element for committing this offence. A general and sweeping allegation has been fastened against all accused persons, who are said to be the men of having chequered past and criminal antecedents. Besides this, they are also said to be in habit of teasing the womenfolk of the village. This by itself is a sweeping and general allegation against all the named accused persons. All the accused persons have allegedly assaulted and caused injuries to Ranjit Kumar and Mahendra Patel. Injured Ranjit Kumar succumbed to the injuries sustained by him and died on 22.8.2020 after 15 days of the incident.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that during this period no statement of injured Ranjit Kumar was recorded by the police. Postmortem report of the deceased reveals that he has sustained 6 injuries over his person, out of which three are on the vital part of the body (head). It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that so far as the allegation of attributing the role of assault upon another injured Mahendra Patel is concerned, his injury report indicates that he has sustained no injury over his persons. Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that keeping in view of the generality of allegation, where there is no specification of assault made by assailants over which part of the body of the deceased and it is difficult to decipher to decide as to who is the real author of fatal injuries sustained by the deceased, under circumstances, the revisionist deserves to be bailed out.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is juvenile and there is no apprehension of reasoned ground for believing that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring him in association with any known criminals or expose him to mental, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. He further submits that except this the revisionist has no previous criminal history. The father of the revisionist is giving his undertaking that after release of the revisionist on bail, he will keep him u
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....
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 452, 392, 364, 376-D, 506 - POCSO Act, 2015 - Section 5G, 6, 12, 18(1)(g) – Criminal Procedural Code, 1973 - Section 161, 164 – Gang Rape – Kidnapping or abducting ....
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....
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....
Juveniles are entitled to bail unless there is clear evidence of potential harm or criminal association, regardless of the severity of the alleged offense.
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.
Point of law: Thus it is law that a bail application of a juvenile can be rejected only :-(i) If there appears reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into as....
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
