Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
JUVENILE -X – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
CRLR/2398/2022
JUVENILE JUSTICE - BAIL - SECTION 12 OF JJ ACT, 2015 - INTERPRETATION - REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR BELIEVING - SOCIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT - GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF JJ ACT, 2015 - PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE - BEST INTEREST OF CHILD - RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY - DISCLOSURE OF IDENTITY OF JUVENILE.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist, a juvenile, was denied bail by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court in a case of murder. The revisionist challenged the orders, arguing that the courts had not considered the mandatory provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, 2015, and had declined bail based on unfounded apprehension.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court. The court held that the courts had not properly appreciated the provisions of Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2015, and had failed to give reasons for declining bail to the revisionist. The court also noted that the findings of the courts were based on the heinousness of the offence, which was not a relevant consideration for denying bail to a juvenile.
Issues: 1. Whether the courts below had properly considered the provisions of Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2015, in denying bail to the revisionist?2. Whether the findings of the courts below were based on unfounded apprehension?3. Whether the courts below had considered the best interests of the child in denying bail?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The use of the word 'shall' in Section 12(1) of the JJ Act, 2015, raises a presumption that the provision is imperative, but this presumption may be rebutted by other considerations such as the object and scope of the enactment and the consequences flowing from such construction.2. The term 'known criminal' has not been defined in the JJ Act, 2015, or the Rules framed thereunder. It is a well-settled rule of interpretation that in the absence of any statutory definition of any term used in any particular statute, the same must be assigned meaning as commonly understood in the context of such statute.3. The gravity of the offence is not a relevant consideration for declining bail to a juvenile. A juvenile can be denied the concession of bail if any of the three contingencies specified under Section 12(1) of the JJ Act, 2015, is available.4. The expression 'reason to believe' means a person is said to have a 'reason to believe' a thing, if he has sufficient cause to believe such thing but not otherwise. The expression 'reason to believe' excludes a mere suspicion.5. The Social Investigation Report (SIR) is an important document that helps the Juvenile Justice Board to make an objective assessment on the reasonable grounds for rejecting the bail application of a juvenile.6. The guiding principles of the JJ Act, 2015, include the principle of presumption of innocence, the principle of dignity and worth, the principle of best interest, the principle of family responsibility, and the principle of right to privacy and confidentiality.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court. The court directed that the revisionist be released on bail subject to certain conditions.
Court No. - 70
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2398 of 2022
Juvenile (X)
...Revisionist
V/S
State of U.P. and Another
...Opposite Parties
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.
1.
Learned AGA has filed counter affidavit, learned counsel
for second respondent has filed counter affidavit, learned counsel
for the revisionist has filed rejoinder affidavit today in the Court,
are taken on record.
2.
Heard Shri Sanjeev Kumar Asthana, learned counsel for
the revisionist, Shri Dharmendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel
for respondent No.2 and Shri Abhishek Singh, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
3.
The Present Criminal Revision has been preferred 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 23.05.2022 passed by Special Judge
POCSO Act, Court No.2, Allahabad, in Criminal Appeal No.62 of
2022, whereby the appellate court has rejected the Criminal
appeal and affirmed the order dated 16.04.2022 passed by
Juvenile Justice Board, Allahabad. The Juvenile Justice Board has
rejected the bail application of the revisionist, which has been
filed by his natural guardian/grand-father, under Section 12 of "JJ
Act, 2015", arising out of Case Crime No.516 of 2021 under
Sections 147, 149, 302, 201/34 of the IPC, Police Station-
2
Handia, District- Prayagraj.
4.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
23.05.2022 and 16.04.2022 passed by the Appellate Court as well
as the Juvenile Justice Board, the revisionist through his father has
preferred the instant criminal revision before this Court.
5.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that first
information report dated 22.08.2021 was lodged by father of the
deceased against the revisionist and four other named persons.
After completing the investigation charge sheet had been
submitted against the revisionist and other four accused persons.
It is further submitted that a missing report was also lodged on
21.08.2021 at 11:40 hours with regard to his son Arav Yadav aged
about 21 years. It is further submitted that as per post mortem
report dated 22.08.2021, wherein it was mentioned that no
external injury was found on the body of the deceased. The cause
of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem drowning. It is
further submitted that after two and half months of the incident, a
last seen witness has been produced by the prosecution, who
stated that all the accused persons are standing near the pond.
6.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the
revisionist was 16 years 4 months 29 days old at the time of the
incident as per ossification test conducted by a Medical Board.
The Juvenile Justice Board has declared the revisionist as juvenile
vide order dated 25.03.2022 and no proceeding is pending against
the order. It is further submitted that the revisionist has been
falsely implicated in the present case due to friendship with co-
accused persons and village party-bandi.
7.
It is further submitted that the finding recorded by the court
below is against the social information report and is based on
3
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. The revisionist is in protective custody in an
observation home since 22.08.2021.
8.
Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the
revisionist has no criminal antecedent to his credit except the
present c
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
