Allowed

Ruksad Khan (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2018CRLR/1105/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision quashed orders refusing bail to a juvenile appellant in a POCSO case involving rape. The court held that the gravity of the offence is not a ground for rejecting bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, and set aside the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders refusing bail set aside; applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties.

Ruksad Khan (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1105 of 2018

¶3

Revisionist :- Ruksad Khan (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Lihazur Rahman Khan,Araf Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and order dated 06.03.2018 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Addl. District Judge, Court No. 7, Ghaziabad in Case Crime No. 1160 of 2017, under Sections- 376, 511 I.P.C. & Sections- 3(2)(5A) SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989 and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Ghaziabad (State of U.P. Vs. Ruksad Khan).

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits admittedly the applicant was a juvenile on the date of alleged incident being 15 years of age. It is then stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated on account of certain misunderstanding and also some petty dispute with the father of the victim. It has been further submitted that there is no medical or other independent evidence in support of allegation of rape and that even according to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., ingredients of offence under Section 376 I.P.C. are not made out.

¶8

It is then submitted that the applicant has remained confined in the child observation home since 02.12.2017 and that there is no specific objection raised in the DPO report other than general and vague observations.

¶9

Further, submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that it is not in dispute that the applicant is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (here-in-after referred to as 'Juvenile Justice Act'). It has been submitted that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act prayer for bail of a juvenile can be rejected 'if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release wound defeat the ends of justice'. It has been submitted that no

¶10

such grounds are available on record to deny bail to the applicant.

¶11

This court is to see whether the opinion of the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and orders are in consonance with the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile. They are:-

¶12

(1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or

¶13

(2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or

¶14

(3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice?

¶15

Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail in Section 12 of the Act.

¶16

It has been submitted that gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration for refusing grant of bail to the juvenile as has been held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB) and it has been a consistent view of various courts. It has been submitted that there exist no material to justify rejection of bail on the grounds envisaged by Section 12 of the Act.

¶17

Learned AGA has opposed prayer for bail but he could not demonstrate from the record that there existed any of the grounds on which bail application of a juvenile could be rejected keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

¶18

In view of the above, the revision is allowed . The order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and order dated 06.03.2018 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Addl. District Judge, Court No. 7, Ghaziabad in the aforesaid case are hereby set aside.

¶19

Let the applicant Ruksad Khan involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶20

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;

¶21

(ii) The applicant through guardian shall file an undertaking to

¶22

the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;

¶23

(iii) The applicant through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

Order Date :- 1.8.2018 Abhilash

Ruksad Khan (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ruksad Khan (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Beenu Nagar Vs State of Up

Surya Bhan Singh @ Nankawa Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Ranjeet Kaur and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohit Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Abdul Hussain Vs State of U.P. and Another