Allowed

Abhishek @ Golu Thru His Father Pujanram v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2018CRLR/3235/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed a criminal revision against bail orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and Court. The Court held that gravity of the offence is not a ground under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act to deny bail and set aside the refusal, ordering release on personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; impugned orders dated 10.8.2017 and 15.9.2017 set aside; revisionist released on bail with personal bond and two sureties.

Abhishek @ Golu Thru His Father Pujanram Vs State of U.P… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3235 of 2017

¶3

Revisionist :- Abhishek @ Golu Thru His Father Pujanram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Praveen Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 10.8.2017 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi in Case Crime No. 312 of 2017, under Section 376D I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Chaubepur, District Varanasi as well as order dated 15.9.2017 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, Court no. 3, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 2017.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist has already been declared juvenile. In the medical examination of the victim, neither external injury nor internal injury is noted. It is then submitted that there are gross discrepancies in the statements of the alleged victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. It has then been suggested that it is a case of consensual relationship which is resulted in the present FIR on account of detection of the relationship by the parents. The applicant is in confinement since 20.5.2017.

¶8

The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that it is not in dispute that the revisionist 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 revisionist.

¶9

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:-

¶10

(1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or

¶11

(2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or

¶12

(3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶13

Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail in Section 12 of the Act.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The orders dated 10.8.2017 and 15.9.2017 passed in the aforesaid case are hereby set aside.

¶17

Let the revisionist Abhishek @ Golu 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:

¶18

(i) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;

¶19

(ii) The revisionist 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;

¶20

(iii) The revisionist 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.

¶21

Order Date :- 16.7.2018 Prakhar

Abhishek @ Golu Thru His Father Pujanram v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek @ Golu Thru His Father Pujanram 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

Shahid Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pallav Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Anil @ Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohd. Jalik and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saeed Hafiz and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Kiran Srivastava and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.