Allowed

Ravi Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2018CRLR/3656/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision against an order rejecting bail for a juvenile accused under IPC sections 302 and 201. The Court held that lower courts failed to properly consider Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, finding no danger to the juvenile or ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

The revisionist Ravi Kumar is enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond by his legal guardian and two sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3656 of 2016

¶3

Revisionist :- Ravi Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Kakkar

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A., for the State of U.P.

¶6

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.10.2016 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Saharanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2016, whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 26.8.2016 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Saharanpur was dismissed. By the said order dated 26.8.2016, Juvenile Justice Board, Saharanpur has rejected the bail application of juvenile (revisionist) in arising out case crime no. 173 of 2016 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, Police Station-Rampur Maniharaan, District-Saharanpur.

¶7

As per prosecution version, some person have committed murder of Madanpal nephew of informant.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that in the present case, no reasonable ground, as specified in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act') exists for rejecting the bail application. Age of the revisionist on the date of occurrence is about 16 years, seven months and ten days. The revisionist is in protection and care of children home for more than 2 years. Moreover, there is nothing adverse against the revisionist/applicant in the report submitted by the District Probation Officer, Saharanpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist further contended that revisionist is not named in the FIR and he has been made accused only on the basis of extra judicial confessional statement of his family members before Mahendra Singh s/o Phul Singh. There is no any criminal antecedents against the revisionist and he is in juvenile care and protection home concerned.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and contended that there is no infirmity or perversity in the impugned order passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Saharanpur and Addl. Sessions Judge, Saharanpur.

¶11

The Juvenile Justice Board, Saharanpur and Addl. Sessions Judge, Saharanpur while rejecting the bail of the juvenile have not properly considered the grounds specified in the Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 .

¶12

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 Ravi Kumar (Juvenile) be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 173 of 2016 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, Police Station-Rampur Maniharaan, DistrictSaharanpur on his furnishing a personal bond by his legal guardian and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board concerned.

¶16

Order Date :- 20.4.2018 Jaswant

Ravi Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar 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

Indrajeet Vs State of U.P.

Mandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Krishna Kumar Agarwal Vs State of U.P.

Pardeshi Vs Kallu and Others

Ramesh Alias Babbu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sharad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another