Dismissed

Gaurav Kumar Juvenile in Conflict With Law v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 May 2018CRLR/1958/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the court dismissed the plea challenging the rejection of bail for a juvenile accused of POCSO-related offences, holding that denying bail was not arbitrary to protect the victim and ensure justice.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision filed for rejection of juvenile bail was dismissed; order of Juvenile Justice Board and Sessions Judge upheld.

Gaurav Kumar Juvenile in Conflict With Law Vs State of… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1958 of 2016

¶3

Revisionist :- Gaurav Kumar (Juvenile In Conflict With Law) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Apul Misra,Jagdev Singh,Rakesh Tripathi-I Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.06.2016 passed by Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Criminal Appeal No. 23/2016 (Gaurav Kumar Vs. State of U.P.), dismissing the appeal against the order dated 21.05.2016 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Bijnor in Case Crime No. 56/2016 under Section 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Sherkot, District Bijnor. By the order dated 21.05.2016, the bail application of juvenile Gaurav Kumar was rejected.

¶7

As per prosecution version, on 31.01.2016 at about 3:00 p.m. revisionist enticed and took away the prosecutrix aged about six years in his room and raped her.

¶8

Learned counsel for revisionist contended that there exists no ground as specified in Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, for rejection of bail application of revisionist. Revisionist is in Protection and Care of Juvenile Home since 01.02.2016. At the time of occurrence, his age was about 15 years 4 months. He has no criminal antecedent. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Nitin Pal (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2015 (2) All JIC 68, it is further contended that the bail of juvenile cannot be rejected on the ground of gravity of offence.

¶9

Learned counsel for opposite party and learned A.G.A. contended that at the time of occurrence prosecutrix was about four and a half years old. Medical report supports rape with her. The release of juvenile is likely to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and his release would defeat the ends of justice.They further contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by courts below.

¶10

In the case of Sakshi Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2004 SC 3566, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the mere sight of the accused may induce an element of extreme fear in the mind of the victim or the witnesses or can put them in a state of shock. In such a situation he or she may not be able to give full details of the incident which may result in miscarriage of justice.

¶11

Prosecutrix and juvenile Gaurav Kumar are residing in same village. After release, juvenile will walk freely in front of prosecutrix/victim. In such a situation, it will be very difficult for her to give full detail of the incident due to state of shock.

¶12

As per medical evidence, prosecutrix was four and a half years old at the time of occurrence. There is a slight redness in the left side of perineum and hymen was slightly torned. Although the gravity of offence is not a ground for rejection of bail but seeing the manner in which offence has been committed, the release of juvenile would defeat the ends of justice.

¶13

In view of above, I find no illegality in the order passed by courts below.

¶14

In the result, instant criminal revision is dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 15.5.2018 Sharad/-

Gaurav Kumar Juvenile in Conflict With Law v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Kumar Juvenile in Conflict With Law 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

Sukh Chand Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bajrangi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sikandar Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Veero Vs State of U.P.

Sunder and Another Vs State of U.P.

Javed and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others