HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 74
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 4213 of 2019
Revisionist :- Radhika (Juvenile)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Gaurav Tripathi,Syed Imran Ibrahim
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Mishra
Hon’ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
This criminal revision u/s 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been filed by Radhika (Juvenile) through natural guardian Ramratan i.e. father of Radhika against order of Juvenile Justice Board as well as of the appellate court, whereby application for bail has been rejected by Juvenile Justice Board as well as Appellate Court.
Learned counsel for revisionist argued that the only ground on which bail application was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board was that there was no natural guardian to keep welfare of the juvenile applicant. This application was moved by some brother-in-law, whereas brother, mother and father of juvenile were in jail in same case crime number and it was held that the applicant was a juvenile offender. This was challenged before the appellate court of Sessions Judge, wherein the appeal was rejected. Presently, Ramratan and mother of applicant have been granted bail and they are in a position to look after welfare of the juvenile offender, who is their daughter and a juvenile in conflict with law. Hence both of courts below committed error in passing the impugned orders. Hence this revision.
Learned counsel for other side as well as learned AGA have vehemently opposed this revision with this contention that the impugned orders were well within jurisdiction of the Juvenile Justice Board as well as Appellate Court with no apparent error on the face of record.
Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through the materials placed on record, it is apparent that the juvenile offender Radhika is an accused in Case Crime No. 223 of 2019, u/s 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Chaubiya, District Etawah. She along with her parents and brother was accused in above case crime number. She has been held to be a minor and a juvenile in conflict with law. Bail application was moved by some brother-in-law of applicant i.e. neither a natural guardian nor a person to be capable to look after welfare of juvenile in conflict with law. Both of courts below rejected bail application on the pretext that applicant – juvenile was with no natural guardian or near relative to look after her welfare and give guardianship in case of her release on bail, because they are in jail in the same case crime number. Hence impugned order of trial court as well as of appellate court was well in accordance with jurisdiction vested in them.
The changed circumstance that parents are on bail in that very case crime number and they are capable to give guardianship and welfare of juvenile offender is a situation, which was not there, while passing both of impugned orders and this changed circumstance permits the applicant-juvenile to move a fresh bail application in the changed circumstance before the Juvenile Justice Board or the Children Court, as the case may be, and it shall be decided in accordance with law.
Accordingly, this revision is being finally disposed of with above observation.
Order Date :- 29.1.2020
Pcl
