 through his Father granted him bail. He was accused of killing mother for not letting him play mobile game PUBG.){kind=link}
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court granted bail to a 16-year-old boy accused of killing mother for not letting him play mobile game PUBG.
A Single Bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh passed this order while hearing a Criminal Revision filed by Juvenile (Minor) through his Father.
The revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, POCSO Court, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal arising out of the case under Section 302 IPC registered at Police Station – PGI, District – Lucknow.
As per the prosecution story, the First Information Report was lodged by the grandmother alleging that the grandson who is 16 years 8 months 7 days and the granddaughter who is of 10 years were living with their mother and once the mother was trying to restrain the revisionist for using mobile phones, the revisionist opened fire and caused death of the daughter-in-law.
Counsel appearing for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case.
He next added that the Juvenile Justice Board while dealing with the matter did not consider the fact that none has seen the incident, as even an informant on the basis of hearsay has lodged FIR and has alleged with the allegation that the grandson has opened fire and murdered the daughter-inlaw.
He also added that even the witnesses who were produced by the prosecution are not the eye-witnesses and they also on hearsay and speculation have stated with respect to the incident. The Board has also failed to consider the mandate of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The Counsel appearing for the revisionist submitted that the proviso clause of Section 12 specifically says that the person shall not be released if their appears a reasonable ground for believing that his release is likely to bring that person in association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or it would defeat the ends of justice.
He further adds that the DPO report is evident that no such grounds have been mentioned while giving the report.
He next added that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Court of Sessions without considering the DPO report in its right perspective has passed the order and rejected the bail of the revisionist.
He further contends that the father of the revisionist who is the guardian of the revisionist is posted in Army and he has been transferred to Lucknow and he undertakes that he will take care of the conduct and behaviour of the revisionist and further added that the revisionist will observe good conduct and behaviour behave in future. He thus submitted that the revisionist may be released on bail.
On the other hand, Counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that from the DPO report it is evident that the revisionist is having anger issues and he himself has stated so.
He further added that the DPO report does not support and squarely covers the case of the revisionist so that the mandate of Section 12 could be applied in the matter of the revisionist.
He further contends that there is serious allegation and heinous crime has been committed by the revisionist and thus he is not entitled for any relief.
“Having heard the Counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that admittedly, the revisionist was 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. This Court has 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 hearsay basis, the bail of the revisionist has been rejected.
It has also been considered that the revisionist is in child protection home since 08.06.2022 and it has 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 behaviour”, the Court observed.
In view of the aforesaid, the Court set aside the order dated 23.12.2022 and the revision is allowed.
The Court ordered that
Let the revisionist, Juvenile through his father, in Criminal Appeal arising out of case under Section 302 IPC registered at Police Station – PGI, District – Lucknow be released on bail 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 Justice Board subject to the following conditions:
(i) Natural guardian/father will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail a juvenile 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 offence.
(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 unproductive and excessive recreational pursuits.