SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Faiz Ahmad @ Faiz vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 13 August, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 69

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 3092 of 2019

Revisionist :- Faiz Ahmad @ Faiz

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.

Counsel for Revisionist :- Krishna Kumar Chaurasia

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

This revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and SectionProtection of Children) Act, 2015, is directed against the judgement and order dated 23.5.2019, passed by the District Sessions Judge, Siddarth Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2019 (SectionFaiz Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others) under Sectionsection 101 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and SectionProtection of Children) Act, 2015 by which the District Sessions Judge, Siddarth Nagar rejected the Second Criminal Appeal of the Revisionist and against the order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the Member, Juvenile Justice Board Siddharth Nagar and Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Siddarth Nagar in Suit No. 24 of 2018 (SectionState v. Fair Ahmad) in Case Crime No. 208 of 2018 under Sectionsection 377 IPC and under section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station -Banshi, District- Siddharth Nagar.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned orders along with entire material on record.

Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the opinion recorded by the District Probation Officer, in its report that in the event the revisionist (juvenile in conflict with law) is released on bail, there is possibility of his going in the company of known and unknown criminals. However, neither Juvenile Justice Board nor appellate court has detailed the basis to arrive at such a conclusion. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that it is merely ipse dexit of Probation Officer unsupported by any evidence. It is further submitted that according to the facts on record the revisionist is below the age of majority and is juvenile in conflict with law. Submission is that the reasoning given in both the impugned orders is very superficial and is not very convincing and is more in the nature of a facewash. Further submission is that the applicant is already in custody since 7.7.2018 and that aforesaid period of detention must have caused reformative effect upon the revisionists-juvenile and he should be given another chance to live a normal life on the supervision of his parents. Counsel has also tried to point out that the impugned orders have not been passed keeping the true spirit of the law that has been laid down with regard to juvenile in conflict with law.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further contended that the revisionist has been declared juvenile but his bail application has been rejected by the learned Board as well as by learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal without any convincing basis for giving finding that if the revisionist is released he is likely to come into association with several known and unknown criminals and expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.

I have considered the submissions made by the parties’ counsel and perused the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below along with entire material on record as well as the provisions of the Act.

The provisions of bail to a juvenile is given in Section 12 of the said Act.

“The said provision provides that a juvenile accused has to be released on bail unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the 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. There is no any basis or material which may bring the case of the revisionist within the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act.”

There is no such substantial material or evidence on record to show that by release on bail, the revisionist would come in association with any known criminal or his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. There is also nothing very substantial on record to show that the release of the revisionist on bail would defeat the ends of justice.

In these circumstances, the Board was not quite justified in rejecting the bail application of the revisionists. Learned Sessions Judge also does not appear to have considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Act in its proper perspective. Thus, both the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be set-aside.

Accordingly, the revision stands allowed.

The judgement and order dated 23.5.2019, passed by the District Sessions Judge, Siddarth Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2019 (SectionFaiz Ahmad v. State of U.P.and others) under Sectionsection 101 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and SectionProtection of Children) Act, 2015 by which the District Sessions Judge, Siddarth Nagar rejected the Second Criminal Appeal of the Revisionist and the order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the Member, Juvenile Justice Board Siddharth Nagar and Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Siddarth Nagar in Suit No. 24 of 2018 (SectionState v. Fair Ahmad) in Case Crime No. 208 of 2018 under Sectionsection 377 IPC and under section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station -Banshi, District- Siddharth Nagar, are set-aside.

The revisionist Faiz Ahmad @ Faiz, son of Ushman, resident of Village- Dhandhapaar, Police Station Basi, Districtd- Siddharth Nagar, involved in the aforesaid case Suit No. 24 of 2018 (SectionState v. Faiz Ahmad) in Case Crime No. 208 of 2018 under Sectionsection 377 IPC and under section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station -Banshi, District- Siddharth Nagar. be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond through his legal guardian and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court/Board concerned.

Order Date :- 13.8.2019

ssm

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation