Allowed

Rakesh Kumar Alias Baswan (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2018CRLR/1662/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the impugned order rejecting bail to a juvenile was illegal as the authorities failed to demonstrate grounds under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The revision was allowed, and the juvenile was released on bail.

What did the court decide?

The order rejecting bail is set aside; the applicant is released on bail with conditions including appearance in court and no tampering.

Rakesh Kumar Alias Baswan (Minor) Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1662 of 2018

¶3

Revisionist :- Rakesh Kumar Alias Baswan (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pradeep Singh Sengar, 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 against the judgement and order dated 09.05.2018 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Ballia in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2018 (Rakesh Kumar @ Baswan Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Misc. Case No. 104 of 2017 in Crime No. 1233 of 2017, under Sections- 376, 323, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Narahi, District- Ballia, whereby the learned Appellate court rejected the appeal filed against the order dated 07.02.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ballia.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant admittedly is juvenile and that the victim is also of the same age. It is then stated that the parties were known to each other from before. Further, it is stated that there is no injury mark either external or internal, though according to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she had beaten by the applicant with hard object.

¶8

Further reliance has been placed on inconsistency in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.

¶9

It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and in the DPO report there is no specific observation as may require the applicant to remain confined in the child observation home for long. He has remained confined since 19.10.2017.

¶10

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 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 09.05.2018 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Ballia in the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

¶19

Let the applicant Rakesh Kumar @ Baswan 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 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;

¶22

(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.

¶23

Order Date :- 23.7.2018 Lbm/-

Rakesh Kumar Alias Baswan (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Alias Baswan (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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amzad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prince @ Rajnish Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prashant Saraswat and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anas Quareshi (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Manish Vats and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.