Allowed

Asendra Juvenile v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2018CRLR/3463/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision challenged the rejection of bail for a juvenile accused of rape under POCSO and IPC sections. The High Court held that the lower judiciary relied only on a Probation Officer's report regarding guardian control, failing to address statutory criteria for bail. The HC allowed bail.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision is allowed; impugned judgments/orders set aside; Revisionist Asendra (Juvenile) is enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 270/2016.

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

¶1

Court No. - 28 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3463 of 2016 Revisionist :- Asendra (Juvenile) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- R.L. Varma,Chandra Bhushan Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pawankumar Dubey

¶2

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶3

List has been revised.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶5

This criminal revision has been filed against the and order dated 26.08.2016 passed by Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 39/2016 (Asendra Vs. State of U.P.), whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 01.07.2016 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Shahjahanpur, was dismissed. By the said order dated 01.07.2016, Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Shahjahanpur has rejected the bail application of Juvenile (Revisionist) in Case Crime No. 270/2016, under Sections 376D, 504, 506, 352 I.P.C. and section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Sindhauli District Shahjahanpur.

¶6

As per prosecution version, on 06.04.2016, at about 10:00 p.m., prosecutrix aged about 15 years went to attend the call of nature. Revisionist Asendra and accused Sumit, Vijay dragged her in the forest and raped on her.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for revisionist that there exists no ground as specified in Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 for rejection of bail application. Learned Juvenile Justice Board has rejected the bail application of applicant only on the basis of report submitted by District Probation Officer, Shahjahanpur, in which it is mentioned that guardian of juvenile has no control on him. On the basis of report of District Probation Officer, Shahjahanpur, it could not be concluded that the release of 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 would defeat the ends of justice. Learned counsel for revisionist further contended that revisionist has been falsely implicated in the case and the age of revisionist is below 16 years. He is in protection and custody of Juvenile Justice Home from 14.04.2016.

¶8

It is further contended that Juvenile Sumit Pal having similar role, has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 06.01.2017 passed by Special Judge/Additional Session Judge Court No. 10, Shahjahanpur in Bail Application No. 2533/2016 (Sumit Pal Vs. State of U.P.), photo copy of which has been produced for perusal.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer for bail and contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board and Session Judge.

¶10

Learned Juvenile Justice Board has rejected the bail application of applicant only on the basis of report submitted by District Probation Officer, Shahjahanpur, in which it is mentioned that guardian of juvenile has no control on him. There is no evidence or material on record to show that the release of 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 would defeat the ends of justice.

¶11

In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that applicant deserves to be released on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed, impugned judgments/orders passed by the courts below are hereby set aside.

¶13

The revisionist Asendra (Juvenile) be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 270/2016, under Sections 376D, 504, 506, 352 I.P.C. and section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Sindhauli District Shahjahanpur on furnishing a personal bond by either of his parents and in absence by his legal guardians and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board .

¶14

Order Date :- 5.4.2018 Sharad/-

Asendra Juvenile v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asendra 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

Raju Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Others

Krishna Jeevan Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Jagdish Pd. Yadav Vs Smt. Sushila Yadav and Others

Rajdev Vs State and Another

Raja Ram and Ors. Vs State