LI Network
Published on: 06 April 2023 at 13:22 IST
Allahabad High Court in its recent Judgment clarified that the seriousness of the crime is not a relevant factor in denying bail to a juvenile.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori was dealing with the criminal revision challenging the judgment passed by Special Judge (POCSO) Act, whereby the appellate court rejected the Criminal appeal and affirmed the order passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur.
In this case, FIR was lodged by the brother of the victim against the revisionist.
The revisionist and other co-accused persons misbehaved with his sister on the way of school and co-accused Abhijeet Prajapati wanted to make physical relation with her and he gave his mobile number on paper. On her objection, he abused her and threatened with dire consequences.
FIR was registered under Sections 376-D, 377, 354, 452, 201, 504, 506 of the IPC, Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 66, 67 of the Information Technology Act.
The issue for consideration before the bench was:
Whether the revisionists is liable to be convicted under Sections 376-D, 377, 354, 452, 201, 504, 506 of the IPC, Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 66, 67 of the Information Technology Act?
The bench noted that the use of the word ‘shall’ in subsection (1) of Section 12 of “JJ Act, 2015” is of great significance. The use of the word ‘shall’ raises a presumption that the particular provision is imperative, but this prima facie inference may be rebutted by other considerations such as the object and scope of the enactment and the consequences flowing from such construction. The word ‘shall’ has been construed as ordinarily mandatory, but is sometimes not so interpreted if the context or intention otherwise demands.
High Court referred to the case of Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra, where it was stated that in the absence of any statutory definition of any term used in any particular statute, the same must be assigned meaning as in commonly understood in the context of such statute.
The bench noted that the gravity of the offence is not a relevant consideration for declining the bail to the juvenile. A juvenile can be denied the concession of bail if any of the three contingencies specified under Section 12(1) of “JJ Act, 2015” is available.
High Court stated that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have not properly appreciated the mandatory provisions of Section 12 of “JJ Act, 2015” as well as other provisions in relation to juvenile ‘X’ and have declined to grant bail merely on the basis of unfounded apprehension. In the absence of any material or evidence of reasonable grounds, it cannot be said that his release would defeat the ends of justice and have failed to give reasons on three contingencies for declining the bail to the revisionist.
The findings recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court are based on the heinousness of the offence, therefore, the order dated 5.1.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and judgment dated 7.3.2022 passed by the Appellate Court are not sustainable.
The case involved a criminal revision challenging the decision of the Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur, which was upheld by the appellate court, regarding a case where the revisionist and co-accused individuals had misbehaved with a girl and one of the accused attempted to have physical relations with her.
The court found that the use of the word “shall” in Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2015 is significant, and while it raises a presumption that the provision is mandatory, this inference can be challenged by other factors such as the context and intention of the statute.
court also noted that the Juvenile Justice Board and appellate court had failed to properly appreciate the mandatory provisions of Section 12 and other provisions relating to the juvenile, and had denied bail based on unfounded apprehension.
The court found that there was no evidence of reasonable grounds to deny bail and that the denial was based solely on the gravity of the offense. As a result, the court allowed the criminal revision.
In view of the above, the bench allowed criminal revision.
Case Title: X Juvenile v. State of U.P. And Another
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori
Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 1332 of 2022
Counsel for the revisionist: Sri Sunil Kumar
