Allowed

Prince @ Rajnish v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2018CRLR/676/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision to quash bail rejection orders. The single judge held that the gravity of the offence is not a ground under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. The order was set aside, and the petitioner was released on bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 15.12.2017 and 23.01.2018 were set aside. The petitioner was released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding evidence tampering and co

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

¶1

Court No. - 49 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 676 of 2018 Revisionist :- Prince @ Rajnish Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶3

Supplementary affidavit filed today in the Court in taken on record.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.

¶5

The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the judgement and order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, District Maharajganj, in Appeal No. 4 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 897 of 2017, under Section 304-B, IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Maharajganj as well as the order dated 23.01.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Maharajganj.

¶6

Learned counsel for the revisionist states that the revisionist is a distant relative of the deceased. It is then stated that the revisionist has been implicated in the present case on mere apprehension and that there is no credible evidence to proceed against him. In any case it is submitted that the D.P.O. report does not make any adverse observation against the revisionist. Still the revisionist is in the observation home since 09.10.2017 and that there is no criminal history of the revisionist.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist has already been declared juvenile.

¶8

The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that it is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile and is entitled to

¶9

the benefits of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (here-in-after referred to as 'Juvenile Justice Act'). It has been submitted that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act prayer for bail of a juvenile can be rejected 'if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release wound defeat the ends of justice'. It has been submitted that no such grounds are available on record to deny bail to the revisionist.

¶10

This court is to see whether the opinion of the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgement and orders are in consonance with the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile. They are:-

¶11

(1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or

¶12

(2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or

¶13

(3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice?

¶14

Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail in Section 12 of the Act.

¶15

It has been submitted that gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration for refusing grant of bail to the juvenile as has been held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB) and it has been a consistent view of various courts. It has been submitted that there exist no material to justify rejection of bail on the grounds

¶16

envisaged by Section 12 of the Act.

¶17

Learned AGA has opposed prayer for bail but he could not demonstrate from the record that there existed any of the grounds on which bail application of a juvenile could be rejected keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

¶18

In view of the above, the revision is allowed . The orders dated 15.12.2017 and 23.01.2018 in the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

¶19

Let the revisionist Prince @ Rajnish involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶20

(i) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;

¶21

(ii) The revisionist through guardian shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;

¶22

(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

Order Date :- 20.7.2018/VKG

Prince @ Rajnish v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prince @ Rajnish 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahnawaj and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shyam Veer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Prashant Saraswat and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramjanam Singh Vs State of U.P.