Allowed

Bhupram v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2018CRLR/4018/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court allowed the plea of a juvenile accused of rape and sexual intercourse. Finding the lower courts failed to properly consider Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and lacked material evidence of danger, the Court set aside the bail rejection and enlarged the juvenile on bail.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; revisionist enlarged on bail by furnishing personal bond by legal guardian and two sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4018 of 2016

¶3

Revisionist :- Bhupram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Krishna Gopal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Krishna Gopal, 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 27.10.2016 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Court No. 8, Bareilly in Juvenile Appeal No. 169 of 2016 (Bhupram v. State), whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 27.9.2016 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly was dismissed. By the said order dated 27.9.2016, Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly has rejected the bail application of juvenile (revisionist) in Case Crime No. 139 of 2016 under Sections 323, 376-D, 506 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, Police Station-Baheri, District-Bareilly.

¶7

As per prosecution version, on 4.4.2016 at about 10.00 P.M., the revisionist and accused-Khemkaran forcefully took away the prosecutrix aged about 14 years in a vacant house and committed rape with her.

¶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, Bareilly 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. Age of the revisionist on the date of occurrence is about 16 years and four months. The revisionist is in protection and care of children home for about 2 years. Moreover, there is nothing adverse against the revisionist/applicant in the report submitted by the District Probation Officer, Bareilly.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist further contended that in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., prosecutrix has narrated that co-accused alongwith revisionist (Bhupram) have committed rape on her. However, in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has narrated only name of the revisionist. As per medical report, the prosecutrix is major. There is no evidence on record to show that revisionist has criminal antecedents.

¶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, Bareilly and Addl. Sessions Judge, Bareilly.

¶11

Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly and Addl. Sessions Judge, Bareilly 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 Bhupram (Juvenile) be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 139 of 2016 under Sections 323, 376-D, 506 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, Police Station-Baheri, District-Bareilly 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 :- 4.4.2018

¶17

Jaswant

Bhupram v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupram 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

Krishna Ballabh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Lakshan and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P.and Others

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