Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.
X (Minor) Juvenile - Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and another – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 2847 of 2022
Decided On : 21-04-2023
Bail - Juvenile Justice - JJ Act, 2015 Sections 12, 3 - The court emphasized the imperative nature of bail provisions for juveniles, highlighting that denial must be based on substantial evidence of potential harm or criminal association, not merely on the gravity of the alleged offense.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist, a juvenile, was denied bail by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court, which cited concerns over potential re-offending and lack of parental control. The revisionist's age and the circumstances of the case were central to the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower courts failed to properly apply the mandatory provisions of the JJ Act regarding bail, particularly neglecting to substantiate claims of potential harm or criminal association with evidence.
Issues: Whether the denial of bail to the juvenile was justified under Section 12 of the JJ Act, considering the lack of evidence supporting claims of potential danger or criminal association.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the gravity of the offense does not justify the denial of bail to a juvenile unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that release would lead to association with known criminals or expose the juvenile to danger.
Result: The court allowed the revisionist's appeal and granted bail under specified conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.
Heard Sri Mayank Krishna S. Chandel, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ghanshyam Kesarwani, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. No one has appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2, even in the revised call.
2. The Present Criminal Revision has been preferred by the revisionist through his father 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 10.6.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Banda in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2022, whereby the appellate Court has rejected the Criminal appeal and affirmed the order dated 19.4.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Banda. 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 Case Crime No. 29 of 2022, under Sections 376, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ''I.P.C.'') and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ''S.C./S.T. Act), and Section 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short ''POCSO Act''), Police Station- Marka, District- Banda.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The revisionist was 14 years and 8 months old at the time of the incident. As per educational certificate, the Juvenile Justice Board declared the revisionist as juvenile vide order dated 7.4.2022 and no proceeding is pending against the order.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the First Information Report was lodged on 12.2.2022 at 22 hours, within 8 hours of the incident against the revisionist by the mother of the victim. As per medical examination report dated 13.2.2022 which was conducted at 11:45 a.m., no internal or external injury was found on the person of the victim. As per educational certificate, victim was 15 years and 7 months old and as per ossification test report, the victim was 16 years old at the time of incident. It is further submitted that hymen was found intact in the medical examination. The revisionist is in protective custody in an observation home since 15.2.2022.
5. 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.
6. 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 the Court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the
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.
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....
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....
Point of law: A perusal of the said provision show that bail for a juvenile, particularly, one who is under the age of 18 years, is a matter of course and it is only in the event that his case falls ....
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....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the right of a juvenile to be released on bail, considering the merits of the case and the equal protection of laws guaranteed under Article 14 ....
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
