Partly allowed

Satyendra Rajbhar @ Rinku v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2018CRLR/936/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court allowed the petition challenging bail rejection orders against a juvenile accused. The Court held that the gravity of the offence is not a ground for denying bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, impugned orders quashed, and the accused released on bail with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Revocation of orders dated 16.2.2018 and 8.1.2018. Release of revisionist on bail with personal bond, two sureties, and undertaking against witness tampering with conditions of presence in court.

Satyendra Rajbhar @ Rinku Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 936 of 2018

¶3

Revisionist :- Satyendra Rajbhar @ Rinku Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Vivek Singh,Bairister Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 16.2.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal no. 14 of 2018 (Satyendra Rajbhar @ Rinku Versus State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 314/2017, under Section 363, 366, 368, 376, 506 I.P.C., and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi, as well as order dated 8.1.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in Case Crime No. 314/2017 (State Vs. Satyendra Rajbhar @ Rinku), under Section 363, 366, 368, 376, 506 I.P.C., and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the age of the revisionist was about 17 years and 9 months and the age of the victim was about 1617years on the date of the alleged incident. It is then stated that perhaps it is a case of consensual relationship. It is thus submitted that the revisionist has remained confined in child observation home since 28.4.2017.

¶8

Further submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that it is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile and is entitled to 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 would defeat the ends of justice'. It has been submitted that no such grounds are available on record to deny bail to the revisionist.

¶9

This court is to see whether the opinion of the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment 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:-

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of

¶14

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 envisaged by Section 12 of the Act.

¶16

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.

¶17

In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The orders dated 16.2.2018 and 8.1.2018 passed in the aforesaid case are hereby set aside.

¶18

Let the revisionist Satyendra Rajbhar @ Rinku 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:

¶19

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

¶20

(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;

¶21

(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.

¶22

Order Date :- 30.7.2018 Prakhar

Satyendra Rajbhar @ Rinku v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyendra Rajbhar @ Rinku 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

Arun Kumar and 7 others Vs State of U.P. and another

Tarun Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ompal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rinkoo Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Verma Urf Sandeep Kumar Chaurasiya(Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sudhanshu Saran Wrongly Shown as Sudhanshu Singh and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another