Allowed

Mahesh Patel (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2018CRLR/966/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in this criminal revision held that the gravity of the offence is not a ground for rejecting bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Finding no statutory bar under the Act, the Court allowed the revision and ordered the release of the juvenile revisionist on bail.

What did the court decide?

The revision was allowed; the impugned orders of the Additional Session Judge and Principal Magistrate were set aside; and the revisionist was released on bail.

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

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 966 of 2018

¶3

Revisionist :- Mahesh Patel (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Hari Om Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 22.2.2018 passed by the Additional Session Judge, court no. 1, Ballia in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2017 (Mahesh Patel Vs. State of U.P.) relating to Case Crime No. 310 of 2015, under Section 363, 366, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Sukhpura, District Ballia and order dated 11.10.2017 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ballia.

¶7

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

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that both the applicant and the alleged victim are minor. However, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that they were in the relationship because of which they had travelled together from Ballia to Delhi where they lived for five and a half months and that the applicant was apprehended only when he came back to Ballia along with alleged victim. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 19.11.2015.

¶9

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 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 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:-

¶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 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 22.2.2018 and 11.10.2017 passed in the aforesaid case are hereby set aside.

¶18

Let the revisionist Mahesh Patel 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 :- 6.7.2018 Prakhar

Mahesh Patel (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Patel (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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Masooque @ Guddu Vs State of U.P.

Vineet Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Rohit Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another