Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.
Minor 'X' Through His Natural Guardian Father 'Y" – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 71 of 2022
Decided on : 20-09-2022
Bail - Juvenile Justice Act - Sections 376, 506 IPC, 3/4 of POSCO Act and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act - 12(1) of Juvenile Justice Act
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist, a juvenile, sought bail in a case involving charges under Sections 376, 506 IPC, 3/4 of POSCO Act and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act. The victim, a six-year-old, was sexually assaulted, and the revisionist appealed against the denial of bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the gravity of the offence is a relevant consideration for refusing bail to a juvenile, and the best interest of the child, demands of justice, and concerns of the society at large must be considered. The court upheld the denial of bail, considering the trauma to the victim and the need for the juvenile's strict supervision and intervention.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act and the consideration of the gravity of the offence, best interest of the child, demands of justice, and concerns of the society at large in the context of bail for a juvenile in a serious criminal case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the gravity of the offence is a relevant consideration for refusing bail to a juvenile, and the best interest of the child, demands of justice, and concerns of the society at large must be considered. The court emphasized the need for strict supervision and intervention for the welfare of the juvenile.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision, upholding the denial of bail to the juvenile, and directed the expedited conclusion of the case without being influenced by the observations made in the order.
JUDGMENT :
1. It appears that name of the revisionist-juvenile has been disclosed in the memo of revision. This fault from the side of revisionist escaped detection by the Registry. The concerned Officer of the Registry is directed to delete the name of the revisionist-minor from the title of the revision as fed and shown in the data on official website and represent him as "Minor 'X' Through His Natural Guardian Father 'Y".
2. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Avanish Kumar holding brief of Sri Narendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2-the informant and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State.
3. This criminal revision has been filed with the prayer to set aside the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj dated 13.09.2021 and the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POSCO Act, Allahabad passed on 30.10.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2021 affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj and declining bail to the juvenile in a matter arising out of Case Crime No. 134 of 2021 under Sections 376, 506 IPC, 3/4 of POSCO Act and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Shankargarh, District-Prayagraj with further prayer to admit him to bail.
4. The submissions of the revisionist is that the juvenile who was found to be of the age of 15 years 8 months and 14 days on the date of the incident, by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 26.08.2021, is lodged in an observation home since 01.05.2021 and that the impugned orders have been passed in complete disregard of the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act; there has been no material before the Juvenile Justice Board or the appellate Court to arrive at a conclusion that in case the juvenile is released on bail, he shall be exposed to physical, moral and psychological danger and that his release shall not be in the best interest of the juvenile himself; the impugned orders being arbitrary and contrary to law and are liable to be set aside.
5. As per the version of the FIR, a six years old daughter of the informant had gone to gather unripe mangoes from the orchard belonging to Sarjo Master where the juvenile was also present. He dragged the victim to an abandoned hut, sexually assaulted her and also threatened and instructed her not to disclose the incident to anybody else. The victim, however, disclosed the whole matter to her mother, thereafter, the FIR Case Crime No. 0134 of 2021 under Sections 376, 506 IPC, 3/4 of POCSO Act and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act was registered same day at 23.47 hours i.e., within seven hours of the occurrence which took place on 30.04.2021 at 17.30 hours in the evening.
6. As per the statement of the victim under Section 161, when she went to gather some mangoes from the place of occurrence i.e., mango orchard, the juvenile taking advantage of the absence of any other in the vicinity, forcibly dragged her to an abandoned hut and ravished her after removing her clothes. After the act, he made her wear the clothes again and sent her back to her house after threatening her and instructing her not to disclose anything to anybody else. As per the medical examination report, she was bleeding from her private parts and there was also rapture of hymen and tear in labia minora and fourchette introitus. She was also bleeding from her vagina and perineum. As per the report of the C.M.O., she was merely 8 years old at the time of the occurrence.
7. First and foremost contention from the side of revisionist is that gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration for refusing bail to the juvenile as has been held by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 2732 of 2010 (Amit Kumar vs. State of U.P.) decided on 14.09.2010, Criminal Revision No. 1266 of 2020 (Kanchan Sonkar vs. State of U.P.) decided on 01.12.2020, Criminal Revision No. 1852 of 2015 (Amit vs. State of U.P.) decided on 16.03.2016 and held by the Apex Court in Prakas
The gravity of the offence is a relevant consideration for refusing bail to a juvenile, and the best interest of the child, demands of justice, and concerns of the society at large must be considered....
The gravity of the offence is not a relevant consideration for refusing bail to a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act. The best interest of the juvenile and the concerns of society at large shoul....
The gravity of the offence should not be a hindrance to refuse bail to a delinquent juvenile, but the nature of the crime, conduct of the accused, and the ends of justice should be considered while e....
The gravity or seriousness of the offence should not be a relevant consideration for refusing bail to a delinquent juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act. The nature of the crime, conduct of the acc....
The gravity of the offense should be considered when judging the entitlement of a juvenile to bail, and the court should balance the interests of the child and the society. The principle of best inte....
: Offence of rape – Bail Granted - There is nothing adverse in report of Probationary Officer nor there is any possibility that on being released revisionist may join company of known criminals - The....
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
