X- Juvenile vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 29781 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:206095
 
Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5611 of 2023
 

 
Revisionist :- X- Juvenile
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashwani Kumar Sachan,Saurabh Sachan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

Order on Criminal Misc. Bail Application

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the judgment and order dated 10.2.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2023 and order dated 6.1.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 452, 307, 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C., P.S. Satti, district-Kanpur Dehat.

The complainant Mansha Ram lodged an FIR on 10.3.2022 at 5:03 a.m, mentioning therein that on 9.3.2022 at 8:15 p.m. when his son Dipendra was at his house seven accused persons named in the FIR along with one unknown person holding illicit arms in their hands came at his house. His son Dipendra was sitting in the Varandah of his house. Suddenly they caught hold Dipendra and Bulli @ Brij Mohan fired a shot due to which he fell down. All the accused persons fired at the door of the house, causing damage to it. They entered into his house and assaulted Arvind Kumar, Parul, Shivangi and Gudia with lathi and danda and presuming them dead they left from the place after firing in the air.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the FIR the role of firing has been assigned to co-accused Brij Mohan. In the postmortem report of the deceased only one gun shot wound is noted and death has been occurred due to it. It is further contended that other injured Shivangi, Arvind Kumar and Parulo have been medically examined on 11.3.2022. In the injury report of Shivangi there is only complaint of pain while injuries of other two injured are superficial and simple in nature. It is further contended that the entire family of Brij Mohan has been falsely implicated. The true facts is that the complainant party was aggressor and they wanted to grab the land of Brij Mohan. The deceased along with three others started raising construction of toilet on that land. On the protest by Brij Mohan and Kamta both were assaulted by the deceased and two others and were chased. Then they ran towards the house. All the family members and people gathered and from crowd someone fired a shot which hit the deceased. It is further contended that medical examination of applicant Kamta was conducted on 11.3.2022 in which three visible injuries have been noted on his body while Brij Mohan has also received as well as nine injuries on his body. No explanation has been offered by the complainant's side about the injuries of accused Kama and Brij Mohan. Lastly it is contended that moreover the role of firing has been assigned to co-accused Brij Mohan. Regarding applicant there are general allegations. No incriminating article or material has been recovered either from the applicant or on his pointing out. He further submits that the main accused Brijmohan @ Bulli, who was assigned the role of firing at the deceased has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 21.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 58577 of 2022. Similarly placed other co-accused Kamta, Ram Mohan alias Lallan, Kaptan Singh and Kallu alias Jag Mohan have already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court, vide orders dated 8.9.2022, 31.10.2022, 20.9.2022 and 9.1.2023 respectively passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 38342 of 2022, 47532 of 2022, 42005 of 2022 and 59795 of 2022, copies whereof have been filed as Annexure-8. It is contended that since similarly placed other co-accused Kamta, Ram Mohan alias Lallan, Kaptan Singh and Kallu alias Jag Mohan have been enlarged on bail by this Court, hence applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of merits as well as parity. The applicant has no previous criminal history and is in jail 12.4.2022. The applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will not temper with the witnesses.

It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and DPO report in his favour and the applicant has remained confined in the child observation home for long since.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has already been declared juvenile.

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that it is not in dispute that the applicant is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (here-in-after referred to as 'Juvenile Justice Act'). It has been submitted that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act prayer for bail of a juvenile can only be rejected 'if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release wound defeat the ends of justice'.

It has been submitted that no such grounds are available on record to deny bail to the applicant.

This court is to see whether the opinion of the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and orders are in consonance with the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile. They are:-

(1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or

(2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or

(3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice?

Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail in Section 12 of the Act.

It has been submitted that gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration for refusing grant of bail to the juvenile as has been held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB) and it has been a consistent view of various courts. It has been submitted that there exist no material to justify rejection of bail on the grounds envisaged by Section 12 of the Act.

Learned AGA has opposed prayer for bail but he could not demonstrate from the record that there existed any of the grounds on which bail application of a juvenile could be rejected keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The order 8.9.2017 and 4.8.2017 in the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

Let the applicant X Minor involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;

(ii) The applicant through guardian shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;

(iii) The applicant through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Order Date :- 28.10.2023

Faridul