Allowed

Somit @ Sumit v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2018CRLR/3385/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision to quash orders denying bail to a juvenile convict. Holding that gravity of the offence is not a statutory ground for refusing bail under the Juvenile Justice Act, the court set aside the impugned orders and granted bail on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders denying bail set aside; revisionist released on bail with personal bond and two sureties on specific conditions.

Somit @ Sumit Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3385 of 2018

¶3

Revisionist :- Somit @ Sumit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pankaj Kumar,Akhilesh Kumar Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated 17.09.2018 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act, Kaushambi in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2018, arising out of order dated 3.8.2018 passed by Incharge, Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kaushambi in case crime no. 164 of 2018, under sections 363, 302, 201, 147 I.P.C., P.S. Sarai Akil District Kaushambi.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the deceased on 16.5.2018 at 2.38 pm stating therein that his son aged about 15 years had left home on 15.5.2018 at about 7.00 pm without informing anyone and despite frantic search his whereabouts could not be traced. Thereafter, dead body was recovered on 16.5.2018; on the same day statement of the first informant was recorded in which he reiterated the version contained in the F.I.R., however, the second statement was recorded on 17.5.2018 in which he has stated that on 11.5.2018 some altercation had taken place between the applicant and four other along with his son in the marriage ceremony of one Piyush, then he introduced version of last seen that he had seen the applicant and four other accused on 15.5.2018 along with his son. It is stated that except evidence of last seen no other reliable evidence to connect the applicant with the present crime. It is next contended that coaccused, Prem Sagar Pandey @ Chhotu, who is major, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 9.10.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37779 of 2018. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is in jail since 21.05.2018 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

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

¶10

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.

¶11

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 dated 17.9.2017 and 3.8.2018 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:-

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

Learned AGA has opposed prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶18

In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 17.9.2018 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO Act, Kaushambi and order dated 3.8.2018 passed by the Incharge, Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kaushambi are hereby set aside.

¶19

Let the revisionist Somit @ Sumit involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail, on his furnishing personal bond with two sureties each of like amount, to the satisfaction of the

¶20

court concerned with the following conditions:

¶21

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

¶22

(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;

¶23

(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.

¶24

Order Date :- 13.12.2018 Arvind

Somit @ Sumit v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somit @ Sumit 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

Ram Sunder Singh Vs State of U.P.and Another

Jalees Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rama Kant and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kailash and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Pramod Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Sauraj Trivedi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another