Allowed

Chhotu Alias Sushil Kumar Minor v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 May 2018CRLR/3740/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 3740 of 2016, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court allowed the revision concerning a juvenile accused of rape-related offences. The court held that the Juvenile Justice Board failed to properly consider grounds for bail rejection as per the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and set aside the lower courts' orders to release the revisionist on bail.

What did the court decide?

The revisionist Chhotu alias Sushil Kumar be enlarged on bail with a personal bond by his legal guardian and two sureties.

Chhotu Alias Sushil Kumar Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3740 of 2016

¶3

Revisionist :- Chhotu Alias Sushil Kumar Minor Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Brij Bhushan Upadhyay,Ashwini Kumar,Brijendra Kumar,Ganesh Shanker Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,D.K.Nirankari

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A., for the State of U.P.

¶6

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.9.2016 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2016 (Chhotu alias Sushil Kumar v. State of U.P.), whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 12.7.2016 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Allahabad was dismissed. By the said order dated 12.7.2016, Juvenile Justice Board, Allahabad has rejected the bail application of juvenile (revisionist) in Case Crime No. 58 of 2016, under Sections 376, 504, 506, IPC, Police Station-kareilly, District-Allahabad.

¶7

As per prosecution version, revisionist has raped the prosecutrix several times on promising her to marry due to which a daughter was born on 5.2.2016.

¶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') specified for rejecting the bail application. Learned Juvenile Justice Board, Allahabad 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 would defeat the ends of justice. The revisionist is in protection and care of children home from 29.2.2016 and a juvenile cannot be kept into protection home for more than 3 years. Revisionist has no criminal antecedents. Prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. has admitted her age about 20 years. At this stage it cannot be said that revisionist was not intended to marry with the prosecutrix. Moreover, there is nothing

¶9

adverse against the revisionist/applicant in the report submitted by the District Probation Officer, Allahabad.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has 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, Allahabad and Addl. Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Allahabad.

¶11

Juvenile Justice Board, Allahabad and Addl. Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Allahabad 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

Bail of juvenile (revisionist) was rejected on the basis of the report of the District Probation Officer in which it is mentioned that guardian of juvenile lacks control over him. The report of District Probation Officer is not based on any evidence.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

Let the revisionist Chhotu alias Sushil Kumar (Juvenile) be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 58 of 2016 under Sections 376, 504, 506, IPC, Police Station-Kareilly, District-Allahabad 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.

¶17

Order Date :- 23.5.2018 T. Sinha

Chhotu Alias Sushil Kumar Minor v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhotu Alias Sushil Kumar Minor 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

Gul Mohammad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devanand Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr. Naresh Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Jai Narayan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mehrajuddin Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Shafaqat Begh Vs State of U.P. and Another