Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.
Juvenile X - Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. 1323 of 2022
Decided On : 12-09-2022
Juvenile Justice Act - Bail - Section 102 - Sections 302, 396, 412 IPC - 2015 (Amit Kumar vs. State of U.P.), 2020 (Kanchan Sonkar vs. State of U.P.), 2015 (Amit vs. State of U.P.), Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006 Cri.L.J. 1373, Vijendra Kumar Mali vs. State of U.P., 2003 (1) J.I.C. 103, Monu @ Moni @ Rahul @ Rohit v. State of U.P., 2011 (74) ACC 353 - The court discussed the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and its non-obstante clause, emphasizing that the gravity or seriousness of the offence should not be taken as an obstacle to refuse bail to a delinquent juvenile. The court also considered the nature of the crime, conduct of the accused, and the ends of justice while deciding on bail for juveniles.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist, a minor, sought bail under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, after being arrested for his involvement in a serious crime. The Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate Court rejected the bail applications, leading to the criminal revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the gravity of the offence should not be a relevant consideration for refusing bail to a juvenile, as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. It emphasized the need to consider the nature of the crime, conduct of the accused, and the ends of justice while deciding on bail for juveniles.
Issues: The main issue was whether the minor should be granted bail under the Juvenile Justice Act, considering the gravity of the offence and the non-obstante clause in the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the gravity or seriousness of the offence should not be taken as an obstacle to refuse bail to a delinquent juvenile, as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. It emphasized the need to consider the nature of the crime, conduct of the accused, and the ends of justice while deciding on bail for juveniles.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision, upholding the rejection of bail for the minor based on the nature of the crime, the ends of justice, and the need for effective protection and supervision.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Chanchal Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State as well as Sri Manvendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and perused the record.
2. This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, has been filed on behalf of the minor 'X' through his natural guardian/father Vinod Pandey S/o Late Basant Pandey R/o Village-Khutahan Namjad Karmaita (Babhnauli), Police Station Shadiyabad, District Ghazipur with the prayer to admit the minor on bail alongwith the prayer to set aside the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi and order dated 06.01.2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Varanasi in Misc Case No. 331/2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 188 of 2021 under Section 302, 396, 412 IPC, Police Station-Phoolpur, District-Varanasi by which the criminal appeal was rejected.
3. As per the version of the FIR lodged by Smt. Bindu Devi wife of deceased Phoolchand Ram, who was holding the post of the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, Branch-Karkhiyaon, Phoolpur, Varanasi at the time of his death; after attending his Office, he was returning to his house on 09.06.2021 at about 6 pm; he had last conversation with his wife at about 6 pm, however, some unknown persons kidnapped and murdered him. On the basis of the FIR Case Crime No. 0188/2021 under Sections 364 and 302 IPC was registered and investigated upon. During the investigation, after collection of some evidence and recording of statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses, the present revisionist, minor son of Vinod was arrested and a total of Rs.12,50,500/- out of the looted amount of Rs. 47 lakhs, bearing the seal of Punjab National Bank and some other incriminating articles like the I-Card of Phoolchand Ram, the deceased and firearms were recovered. Three of the other arrested co-accused persons namely, Alok Rai, Arun Mishra and Rahul Tiwari, in their confessional statements before the Police, also named the revisionist, a juvenile.
4. During the proceedings before the Juvenile Justice Board, the revisionist was found to be of the age of 17 years, 8 months and 14 days on the date of the incident and was declared juvenile vide order dated 17.09.2021. A bail application through guardian was moved before the Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi, but the same was rejected. Thereafter, a criminal appeal no. 123/2021 was preferred by the real father and guardian of the juvenile and the same was also dismissed.
5. Aggrieved by the above orders, this criminal revision has been preferred to set aside the same and to admit the juvenile to bail.
6. First and foremost contention 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 that 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 Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006 Cri.L.J. 1373.
7. In Criminal Revision No. 1852 of 2015 (Amit vs. State of U.P.) decided on 16.03.2016, the Court referred to the earlier judgement in Vijendra Kumar Mali vs. State of U.P., 2003 (1) J.I.C. 103, wherein it was observed that in a number of judgements, it has been categorically held that bail to the juvenile can only be refused if one of the grounds as provided in proviso to Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 exist. So far as the ground of gravity is concerned, it is not covered under the relevant provisions. If the bail application of the juvenile was to be considered under the provisions of Cr.P.C., there would have been absolutely no necessity for the enactment of the aforesaid Act. The Section 12 of the Act contains a non-obst
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 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 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....
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....
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....
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....
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
