Allowed

Arbind Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2018CRLR/3102/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against a Juvenile Justice Board order rejecting bail under the POCSO Act and IPC, the Single Judge of U.P. held that the juvenile deserved release. The court allowed the revision, set aside lower orders, and directed the Board to enlarge the juvenile on bail with a personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; revisionist to be enlarged on bail by furnishing personal bond of legal guardian and two sureties.

Arbind Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3102 of 2017

¶3

Revisionist :- Arbind Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A., for the State. Perused the record.

¶6

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.8.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Ghazipur in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2017 (Arbind Singh Vs. State of U.P.) dismissing the appeal against the order dated 10.8.2017 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur in Case Crime No. 203 of 2017 (State Vs. Arbind Singh) under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Gamhar, District Ghazipur. By the order dated 10.8.2017 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur, the bail application of the juvenile was rejected.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., prosecutrix has narrated that she has gone with the revisionist on her own sweet will. As per medical report, the age of the prosecutrix is about 18 years. Revisionist is in custody since 15.6.2017. He further 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 (in short 'the Act') exists for rejecting the bail application. Learned Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur rejected the bail application of the applicant (revisionist) on the ground that his release 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 the ends of justice.

¶8

Lastly, learned counsel for the revisionist contended that as per provision of Section 15 (1) (g) of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 a juvenile cannot be directed to be kept in Special Home for a period of more than three years.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Courts below have rejected the bail of the revisionist on the basis of report of District Probation Officer, Ghazipur, in which, it is mentioned that involvement of the juvenile in the occurrence cannot be ruled out. There is nothing adverse against the revisionist in the report submitted by the District Probation Officer, Ghazipur. Moreover, 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.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

Let the revisionist Arbind Singh (Juvenile) be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 203 of 2017 (State Vs. Arbind Singh) under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Gamhar, District Ghazipur 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.

¶14

Let a certified copy of this order be provided to the courts below for necessary compliance.

¶15

Order Date :- 14.12.2018 Jaswant

Arbind Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arbind 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Braj Kishore Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Riaz Mohammad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Genda Rani @ Meva Kumari @ Meva Rani Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arbaz Vs State of U.P.

Bhaguati Singh and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Sompal Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and Another