Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
X-Juvenile – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 2168 of 2023
Decided On : 07-07-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case regarding juvenile and charges (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's observations on proceedings and parties' submissions (Para 3 , 4 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments regarding the application and illegalities (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. interpretation of section 12 of jj act, 2015 (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. conditions for bail refusal and case law precedent (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. social investigation report findings of the juvenile (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. justification for granting bail based on previous cases (Para 15) |
| 8. final order granting bail to the juvenile (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Ali Hasan assisted by Mr. Istiyaq Ali learned counsel for the revisionist and Smt. Vijeta Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2/Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a first information report has been lodged on 18.08.2021 against Chhote @ Mohd. Sahid Khan, Raju@ Saif, Saleem, Shoeb, Faim, Nasim, Wasim, Munna and Hasim which was registered as Case Crime No. 253 of 2021 under Sections 8 /21/29/30/22C/25/27A NDPS Act at Police Station-Fatehganj Purvi District-Bareilly with the allegation that during raid by police 4 packets of 20 kg 9(each packets contain 5 kg) has been recovered from the possession of accused Chhote@ Mohd. Sahid Khan and Raju@ Saif who were arrested from spot whereas the others accused Nassem@ Munna, Saleem, Shoaib, Faim, Naim, Waseem, Hasim have runaway from the spot, whose name came into light in the statement of arrested accused, namely, Chhotey@ Mohd. Sahid Khan and Raju@ Saif recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The date of birth of revisionist on the date of alleged incident was 12.06.2007 i.e. 14 years 2 month 6 days, so an application was filed on behalf of revisionist before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly, who vide order dated 03.01.2023 declared the revisionist as juvenile. District Probation Officer, Bareilly sent his report dated 24.01.2023 before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board Bareilly about the antecedents and family background of the revisionist/juvenile. On behalf of revisionist, a bail application was filed. Opposite party No. 2 filed his counter affidavit/objection to the bail application of the revisionist. The learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly after hearing the learned counsel for the parties rejected the bail application filed on behalf of the revisionist vide order dated 31.01.2023. Against the order dated 31.01.2023, a criminal appeal was filed on behalf of revisionist which was numbered as Appeal No. 7 of 2023. The Special Judge, POCSO Act/Addl. Session Judge, Bareilly vide judgment dated 29.03.2023, dismissed the criminal appeal No. 7 of 2023 filed on behalf of revisionist hence this revision on behalf of revisionist before this Court through his aunty (mausi) under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
3. This Court on 26.04.2023 admitted the revision and passed the following orders:
The present criminal revision has been preferred to set aside the order dated 29.03.2023 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, Bareilly by which the appellate court has affirmed the order dated 30.01.2023, whereby bail application has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned orders have been passed without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and report of D.P.O.
Admit.
Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party No. 1.
Issue notice to opposite party No. 2 through C.J.M. concerned returnable at an early date.
Learned A.G.A. as well as opposite party No. 2/Intelligence Officer, may file their
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 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 ....
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 ....
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 offense's severity.
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
