Allowed

Vishal Agrahari v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2019CRLR/116/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside orders rejecting bail. The Court held that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, seriousness of the offence is not a valid ground for denying bail to a juvenile.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; impugned orders set aside; juvenile released on bail with personal bond and two sureties to be filed before the Juvenile Justice Board.

Vishal Agrahari Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 116 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Vishal Agrahari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Vineet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Record reveals that bail of juvenile-revisionist involved in Case Crime No. 94 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366 and 376-D I.P.C. and 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, P.S. Purandarpur, District Maharajganj has been rejected by Juvenile Justice Board, Maharajganj vide judgement and order dated 6.11.2018.

¶7

Appeal there-against has also been dismissed vide judgement and order dated 7.12.2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Maharajganj in Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2018.

¶8

Both the orders of Courts below are impugned in the present criminal revision.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case. No offence against the revisionist is made out and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. The juvenile-revisionist is in custody since 25.4.2018. He has been declared juvenile by Board and order of Board has become final. He further pointed out that the co-accused Bechu has already been bailed out by this Court vide order dated 20.9.2018.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for State opposed the prayer for bail and supported the judgements of Courts below.

¶11

As per prosecution story, juvenile-revisionist is alleged to

¶12

have taken away the victim Mahima Pandey and raped on her.

¶13

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 provides the provisions as to when bail to a juvenile can be refused.

¶14

"12 Bail of Juvenile.--(1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person but he shall not be so released if there appears 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.

¶15

(2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board.

¶16

(3) When such person is not released on bail under subsection(1) by the Board, it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order."

¶17

In view of the aforesaid provision, the bail application of the juvenile can be rejected only on the existence of the aforementioned grounds enumerated in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

¶18

Apart from it, in the case of Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. [2010 (71) ACC 209 (Alld)] and Naurang (minor) Vs. State of U.P. [2010 (71) ACC 255 (Alld) , this Court has observed that seriousness of offence is no ground to reject the bail to a juvenile.

¶19

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and rival contention of learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of records available on file, report of Probation Officer,

¶20

there is no ground so as to justify the rejection of bail of juvenile under Section 12 of the said Act, therefore, the revision deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders are hereby set aside.

¶21

Let juvenile-revisionist- Vishal Agrahari involved in Case Crime No. 94 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366 and 376-D I.P.C. and 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, P.S. Purandarpur, District Maharajganj be released on bail in the custody of his mother on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties before the Juvenile Justice Board concerned to its satisfaction and to file an undertaking that he will look after the juvenile-revisionist carefully and will not let him involve in any criminal case or associate with known or known criminals and shall produce him when and wherever, as directed, before Juvenile Justice Board or any other Court.

¶22

Order Date :- 22.4.2019 Manoj

Vishal Agrahari v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Agrahari v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Manoj Kumar (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Rajbhar (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Brajesh Yadav (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mannawar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sanjay Nishad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipin Yadav (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another