Read Time: 05 minutes
The FIR for murder was lodged by the grandmother of the juvenile in June last year. The boy allegedly shot dead her mother with his father's licensed gun when she tried to stop him from playing PUBG on his mobile phone.
The Allahabad High Court has recently granted bail to the juvenile accused of killing his mother when she tried to restrain him from playing mobile phone game PUBG.
The bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh allowed the revision petition moved by the 16-year-old boy against the decision of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, POCSO court who had denied him bail.
The single judge bench noted that there were no eyewitnesses in the matter and only on the basis of hearsay evidence, the juvenile's bail plea had been rejected.
Court also highlighted that the juvenile had been in a child protection home since June 8, 2022, and an undertaking has also been given by his father that he will keep an eye on the juvenile and will ensure that he observes good conduct and behavior.
While further stressing that the DPO report did not disclose any fact that the release of the revisionist will bring him in association with any unknown criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, the court decided to release him on bail.
The FIR in the matter was lodged by the grandmother of the juvenile. She had stated that when her daughter-in-law tried to stop her teenage son from playing a game on his mobile phone, he opened fire at her and killed her.
However, the counsel for the accused juvenile argued that he had been falsely implicated in the matter as no one had seen the incident, and the FIR had also been lodged by the grandmother on the basis of only hearsay statements.
He further asserted that while dealing with the present matter, the Juvenile Justice Board failed to consider the mandate of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 which provides for bail to a child alleged to be in conflict with law.
On the other hand, the revision petition was vehemently opposed by the counsel appearing for the State who argued that the mandate of Section 12 of the JJ Act could not be applied in the present matter. He also argued that the juvenile should not be granted any relief as serious allegations were against him of committing a heinous crime.
Case Title: Juvenile 'X' (Minor) Thru. His Father v. State Of U.P. and Another
Please Login or Register
