Allowed

Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2018CRLR/3992/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against orders rejecting bail of a declared juvenile accused charged under Sections 452, 376 IPC and POCSO Act. Court held lower courts failed to properly consider Section 12 provisions. Both orders set aside; applicant granted bail on personal bond via guardian and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Rev revised orders of Additional Sessions Judge and Juvenile Justice Board set aside. Revisionist released on bail via personal bond through legal guardian and two sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3992 of 2017

¶3

Revisionist :- Vivek Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Vikas Tiwari,Indra Kumar Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, jalaun at Orai, in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2017 (Vivek Kumar vs. State of U.P.), and the order dated 27.10.2017 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Jalaun at Orai, in Bail Application No.42 of 2017 (State Vs. Vivek Kumar) arising out of case Case Crime No.153 of 2017, under Sections 452, 376, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Ata, District Jalaun rejecting the bail application of the revisionist.

¶6

Despite service of notice, no one has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned orders along with entire material on record.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the Court below have illegally rejected the bail application of the revisionist who is admittedly a juvenile in conflict with law. It is submitted that the revisionist is in custody since 20.9.2017 .

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further contended that the revisionist has been declared juvenile but his bail application has been rejected by the learned Board as well as by learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal without any convincing basis for giving finding that if the revisionist is released he is likely to come into association with several known and unknown criminals and expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶10

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and perused the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below along with entire material on record as well as the provisions of the Act.

¶12

The provisions of bail to a juvenile is given in Section 12 of the Act.

¶13

The said provision provides that a juvenile accused has to be released on bail unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release 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. There is

¶14

no any basis or material which may bring the case of the revisionist within the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act.

¶15

There is no such substantial material or evidence on record to show that by release on bail, the revisionist would come in association with any known criminal or his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. There is also nothing very substantial on record to show that the release of the revisionist on bail would defeat the ends of justice.

¶16

In these circumstances, the Board was not quite justified in rejecting the bail application of the revisionist. Learned Sessions Judge also does not appear to have considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Act in its proper perspective. Thus, both the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be set-aside.

¶17

Accordingly, the revision stands allowed. The order dated 29.11.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, jalaun at Orai, in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2017 (Vivek Kumar vs. State of U.P.), and the order dated 27.10.2017 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Jalaun at Orai, in Bail Application No.42 of 2017 (State Vs. Vivek Kumar) arising out of case Case Crime No.153 of 2017, under Sections 452, 376, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Ata, District Jalaun, are set-aside.

¶18

The revisionist, Vivek Kumar son of Pratap Singh, through his legal guardian Pratap Singh, resident of Village Ata, P.S. Ata, District Jalaun, involved in aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond through his legal guardian and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Board concerned.

¶19

Order Date :- 16.3.2018 Hasnain

Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Haridwar Singh Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

gyan chandra and another Vs state of up and another

Taufiq Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raju Patel Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Jalalu Alias Jalaluddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nawab Ali Vs State of U.P. and Anr.