Allowed

Vipin Kumar Minor Thru His Father Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 May 2018CRLR/2414/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 2414 of 2016, the High Court allowed the revision and set aside impugned orders rejecting bail for a juvenile accused charged under IPC 376, 506 and POCSO Act Section 4. The Court held the juvenile deserves release on personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; impugned orders set aside; juvenile enlarged on bail with personal bond and two sureties.

Vipin Kumar Minor Thru His Father Bhagwan… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2414 of 2016

¶3

Revisionist :- Vipin Kumar (Minor) Thru' His Father Bhagwan Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ganga Bhushan Mishra,Nazrul Islam Jafri

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Subhash Chand

¶5

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel the revisionist and in opposition, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2016 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 5, Aligarh in Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2016 (Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P. and another), dismissing the appeal against order dated 18.05.2016 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh in Misc. Case No. 43 of 2016 (State v. Vipin Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No. 106 of 2016, under Sections 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short 'POCSO Act'), Police Station - Harduaganj, District - Aligarh. Vide impugned order dated 18.05.2016, the application of applicant-revisionist (juvenile) was rejected.

¶9

As per prosecution version, juvenile Vipin and accused Rinku had committed rape on the prosecutrix, aged about 16 years, due to which she became pregnant. Later on, on the application of her father to Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh, first information report was lodged.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that in the present case, no good ground, as specified in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 exists for rejecting the bail application. The revisionist (juvenile) has no other criminal antecedents and he in care and protection of children home since 13.04.2016. Age of the revisionist on the date of the occurrence was about 15 years and 5 months.

¶11

Further contention has been raised by learned counsel for the revsionist that FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay, without any plausible explanation. Moreover, in her statement

¶12

recorded on 12.05.2017 before the Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh, the victim (prosecutrix) has not supported the prosecution version and has turned hostile. In her statement, she stated that she was pressurized by her father and police officer to state before the court under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that accusedrevisionist committed rape on her.

¶13

Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. They further contended that bail application of the applicant-revisionist was rejected on the basis of report of District Probation Officer, Hathras, in which it is mentioned that guardian of juvenile (revsionist) lacks control over him.

¶14

There is no material evidence on record to show that release of revisionist (juvenile) is likely to bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat ends of justice. Moreover, the report of District Probation Officer, Hathras is not based on any substance. There is no evidence on record to prove the fact that guardian of juvenile lacks control over him.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the revisionist deserves to be released on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the instant revision is allowed. Impugned judgments/orders passed by the courts below are hereby set aside.

¶17

Let the revisionist - Pradeep Kumar (Juvenile) be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 106 of 2016 under Sections 376, 506 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Harduaganj, District - Aligarh on his furnishing a personal bond by his legal guardian and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board concerned.

¶18

Let a copy of this order be certified to the court below for its intimation and necessary compliance.

¶19

Order Date :- 17.5.2018 I. Batabyal

Vipin Kumar Minor Thru His Father Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Kumar Minor Thru His Father Bhagwan Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyamdev Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Manjesh Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhola Nath Tewari Vs Radhey Shyam and Ors.

U.Mishra Vs State

Ram Dawar Dwivdi Vs State of U.P. and Another