Allowed

Sachin Ram Alias Satendra Ram v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC15 May 2019CRLR/1452/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court quashed the order refusing bail to a juvenile involved in a POCSO and kidnapping case. The Court held that gravity of offence is not a ground for refusal under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, as per Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu. Bail is allowed with conditions.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was allowed, impugned orders quashed, and the applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding evidence tampering and court

Sachin Ram Alias Satendra Ram Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1452 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Sachin Ram Alias Satendra Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajeet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit 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 to quash the judgment and order dated 14.03.2019 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2019(Sachin Ram alias Satendra Ram vs. State of U.P. and another) and also quash the order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ballia, in case Misc. Case No.116 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.102 of 2018 under sections 363, 366 IPC & 7/8 POCSO Act, PS. Bansdih, District Ballia and further prayer is to release the revisionist on bail in the aforesaid case.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant who is minor is in custody since 4.10.18 He further submitted that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has already been declared juvenile vide order dated 13.2.2019.

¶9

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that it is not in dispute that the applicant is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Juvenile

¶10

Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (herein-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 applicant.

¶11

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:-

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶16

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.

¶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 order 14.03.2019 and 13.02.2019 in the aforesaid case are hereby set aside.

¶19

Let the applicant Sachin Ram alias Satendra Ram 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 applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;

¶21

(ii) The applicant 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 applicant 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

¶23

sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

Order Date :- 15.5.2019 Rk

Sachin Ram Alias Satendra Ram v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Ram Alias Satendra Ram 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

Harswroop Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pappu Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jayhind Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamlesh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Govind Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeev Vs State of U.P. and Another