AnirudhAlex Victor
As per the prosecution, the juvenile killed his mother when she refused to let him play a mobile game (PUBG). The Juvenile lived with his mother and younger sister when his mother stopped her 16-year-old son from playing mobile games, he became enraged. He quickly took up his father’s licensed handgun and shot her in the head, killing her on the spot. When the mother’s body began to decompose, the boy made up a story and informed the police. The FIR was filed by the accused grandmother and was lodged under Section 302 IPC at Police Station – PGI, District -Lucknow.
It was argued on behalf of the revisionist that the prosecution’s witnesses are not eyewitnesses and have made statements based on hearsay and guesswork about the occurrence and the DPO report also stated that the release of the juvenile was not likely to bring him in association with any known criminal. The counsel for the revisionist, in support of his contention, learned placed reliance on a judgment rendered in the case of Juvenile ‘X’ through his father Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. passed in Criminal Revision No. 2318 of 2021 and referred to Paragraphs 14 to 16 of the judgment. Paragraphs 14 to 16 of the judgment are quoted hereunder: –
Provisions of Section 12 of “Juvenile Justice Act, 2015” manifest that ordinarily, the Juvenile Justice Board is obligated to release the juvenile on bail with or without surety. The juvenile shall not be so released in certain circumstances as the latter part of the section also uses the word ‘shall’, imposing certain mandatory conditions prohibiting the release of the juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board. If there appear reasonable grounds for believing; (a) that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal; (b) that release is likely to expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger, and (c) that release of juvenile in conflict of law would defeat the ends of justice.
The term ‘known criminal’ has not been defined in “Juvenile Justice Act, 2015” or 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 statute the same must be assigned meaning as in commonly understood in the context of the such statute as held by SupremeCourt in Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 9 SCC 721 in para 11 as under:
“11……It is well-settled principle of interpretation of the statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business, or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understand to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning.[Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd., (1996) 10 SCC 413:AIR 1996 SC 3509 and Chemical and Fibers of India v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC664: AIR 1997 SC 558]“
From a bare reading of the provisions of Section 12 of “Juvenile Justice Act, 2015“, it appears that the legislature intends to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offense alleged to have been committed by the juvenile, and bail can be declined only in such cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into an association of any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The gravity of the offense is not a relevant consideration for declining the bail for 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. A similar view has been taken in the cases of Manoj Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2004 (2) RCC 995, LalChand v. State of Rajasthan, 2006 (1) RCC 167, Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, 2006(2) RCR (Cri.) 530, Udaibhan Singh @ Bablu Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2005 (4)Crimes 649, Shiv Kumar @ Sadhu v. State of U.P., 2010 (68) ACC 616 (LB), Maroof v.State of U.P., [2015 (6) ADJ 203].”
On the other hand, the counsel for the state opposed the revision that DPO report indicates that the revisionist has anger issues.
The Court observed that the revisionists 16 years 8 months and 7 days at the date of the incident and that is evident from the impugned order of the Juvenile Justice Board. Thus, it is established that the revisionist is a juvenile. The Court also noticed the fact that the DPO report does not disclose the fact that the release of the revisionist shall bring him in association with any unknown criminal or expose the revisionist to moral, physical, or psychological danger. Further, so far as the merit of the case is concerned, the FIR has been lodged by the grandmother of the revisionist and she is not an eyewitness. The other witnesses are also not the eyewitnesses in the instant matter and only on a hearsay basis, the bail of the revisionist has been rejected.
The court also observed that the case of the revision is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Juvenile ‘X‘through his father in Criminal Revision No. 2318 of 2021 by the co-ordinate bench of Allahabad High Court.
The Court also observed that the revisionist was in a child protection home since 08.06.2022 and it had been undertaken by the father of the revisionist, who is the guardian, that he will keep vision over the revisionist and the revisionist will observe good conduct and behavior.
Thus, the Court ordered the release of the revisionist after furnishing of a person bond by his father with two sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile JusticeBoard subject to the following conditions. with the following conditions: –
(i) Natural guardian/father will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail juvenile ‘X’ will not be permitted to go into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical, or psychological danger and further that the father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offense.
(ii) Natural guardian/father will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juvenile will pursue his study at the appropriate level, which he would be encouraged to do besides other constructive activities and not allowed to waste his time in productive and excessive recreational pursuits.
The above order was passed by Hon’ble Mr Justice Shree Prakash Singh.
The revision application was represented by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai, Mr. Prakarsh Pandey and Praveen Kumar Shukla, Advocates.