Allowed

Arjun Gangwar Juvenile v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 May 2018CRLR/3164/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal revision against an order rejecting bail for a juvenile accused of rape and POCSO offences. Relying on medical reports and interim care status, the Court found no grounds under the Juvenile Justice Act to keep the juvenile in custody and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Revisionist enlarged on bail under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act on personal bond and two sureties.

Arjun Gangwar Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3164 of 2016

¶3

Revisionist :- Arjun Gangwar (Juvenile) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Amit Kumar Srivastava,Rajesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Kumar Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. (opposite party no. 1).

¶6

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14.09.2016 passed by Sessions Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 8, Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 2016 [Arjun Gangwar v. State of U.P.], whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 27.8.2016 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly was dismissed. By the said order dated 27.8.2016, Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly had rejected the bail application of juvenile (revisionist) in Crime No. 83 of 2016 (State v. Arjun Gangwar) under Sections 376 IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station - Fatehganj Purwi, District - Bareilly.

¶7

As per prosecution version, on 14.6.2016 in between 4-5 PM revisionist (Arjun Gangwar) took the prosecutrix aged about 7 years in room and outraged her modesty and threatened her to kill if she disclosed the incidence to any one. Later on 16.6.2016 she stated to her mother about the incidence. When informant went to complain to father of revisionist, his father and 13 other accused assaulted them. FIR has been lodged under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act. During investigation offence under Section 376 IPC was added.

¶8

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 (in short 'the Act') exists for rejecting the bail application. Learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly 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

¶9

would defeat the ends of justice.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist further contended that revisionist is in Care and Protection Home for about 2 years. Allegation of false rape is made against revisionist. There is no any external or internal injury on the body of the prosecutrix and hymen of the prosecutrix is intact.

¶11

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

¶12

Courts below have rejected the bail of the revisionist on the basis of report of District Probation Officer, Bareilly, 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, Bareilly. 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.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

Let the revisionist Arjun Gangwar (Juvenile) be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 83 of 2016 (State Vs. Arjun Gangwar) under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station - Fatehganj Purwi, District - Bareilly 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.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 4.5.2018 Jaswant

Arjun Gangwar Juvenile v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Gangwar Juvenile 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

Mustafa Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Dutt Vs State of U.P.

Lallu Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakeel Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Suresh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another