Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1878 (ALL)

Surya Prakash Tripathi v. State of U. P.

2014-06-24

MANOJ MISRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Manoj Misra, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State. 2. By the present application the applicant, who is the informant of case crime No. 236 of 2012, police station Shivli, district Kanpur Dehat, under Section 304-A IPC, has challenged the order dated 3rd June, 2014, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat in case No. 245 of 2012, by which pending determination of the question of juvenility the Board has granted interim bail to the accused, who have been arrayed as respondents 2 to 4 to the application. 3. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned AGA with regards to the maintainability of the application on ground that under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, (herein-after referred to as 'Act') an appeal against an order of the Board would lie before the Court of Session and, therefore, as a statutory remedy is available to the applicant, the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that for grant of bail, under Section 12 of the 'Act', the Board must, prima facie, satisfy itself that the accused produced before him is a juvenile. It has been submitted that no satisfaction has been recorded by the Board with regards to the claim of juvenility of the accused and yet the Board has released the accused on an interim bail pending consideration of the bail application, particularly when no report of District Probation Officer has been received as yet. It has thus been submitted that the order passed by the Board is without jurisdiction and deserves correction by this Court. 5. Be that as it may, since against an order of a competent authority, a statutory appeal lies under Section 52 of the 'Act' and Section 2(g) of the said 'Act' provides that in relation to a juvenile in conflict with law, the Board shall be the competent authority, therefore, the applicant has an alternative statutory remedy against the order passed by the Board. The question which has been raised before this Court can also be taken before the Court of Session in an appeal under Section 52 of the 'Act'. 6. The question which has been raised before this Court can also be taken before the Court of Session in an appeal under Section 52 of the 'Act'. 6. In view of the above, the application of the applicant is dismissed on ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy under Section 52 of the 'Act'. It is, however, observed that in case any appeal is preferred by the applicant against the order dated 3rd June, 2014 before the Court of Session, the Court would consider whether, in the facts of the case, the Board had jurisdiction to grant bail and pass appropriate orders after hearing the affected parties, in accordance with law.