Allowed

Rahul Kumar Minor v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2018CRLR/4057/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge High Court revision allowed the bail application of a juvenile accused under the POCSO Act. The court set aside orders rejecting bail as legally unsustainable for lack of material showing risk of association with criminals or danger to justice.

What did the court decide?

Bail dismissed against guidelines; order of Juvenile Justice Board and Sessions Judge set aside; revisionist to be released on furnishing personal bond.

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

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4057 of 2017

¶3

Revisionist :- Rahul Kumar (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Vijay Bahadur Shivhare Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

This revision is directed against the order dated 21.11.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Hamirpur/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal No.60 of 2017 (Rahul Kumar vs. State of U.P.), dismissing the said appeal arising out of order dated 24.10.2017 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Hamirpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in Case Crime No.144 of 2017, under Sections 354A I.P.C. and Section 8 of The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Jariya, District-Hamirpur rejecting the bail application of the revisionist (juvenile).

¶6

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.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the opinion recorded by the District Probation Officer in its report that in the event the revisionist (juvenile in conflict with law) is released on bail there is possibility of his going in the company of known and unknown criminals. However, neither Juvenile Justice Board nor appellate court has detailed the basis to arrive at such a conclusion. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that it is merely ipse dixit of Probation Officer unsupported by any evidence. It is further submitted that according to the facts on record the revisionist is below the age of majority and is juvenile in conflict with law. It was further submitted that ordinarily such accused is being released on bail unless his case falls under the exceptions that have been provided under the Act. Submission is that the reasoning given in both the impugned orders is very superficial and is not very convincing and is more in the nature of a facewash. Further submission is that the applicant is already in custody since 23.5.2017 and that aforesaid period of detention must have caused reformative effect upon the revisionists-juvenile and he should be given another chance to live a normal life on the supervision of his parents. Counsel has also tried to point out that the impugned orders have not been passed keeping the true spirit of the law that has been laid down with regard to juvenile in conflict with law.

¶8

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.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

In these circumstances, the Board was not quite justified in rejecting the bail application of the revisionists. 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.

¶15

Accordingly, the revision stands allowed. The order dated 24.10.2017 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Hamirpur and order dated 21.11.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Hamirpur/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Hamirpur are set-aside.

¶16

The revisionist, Rahul Kumar son of Sita Ram resident of Village-Pahra, Police Station Jariya, District-Hamirpur, 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.

¶17

Order Date :- 21.3.2018

¶18

MN/-

Rahul Kumar Minor v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Dadoo Lohar Alias Ram Naresh Juvenile Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Zoraiz (Advocate) Vs State of U.P.

Dr. Bundan Babu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar Dixit Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dayanand Sagar @ Chhotu Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another