Allowed

Rahul Rajpoot v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2019CRLR/2343/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 2343 of 2018, the High Court allowed the revision by a juvenile accused charging of rape. The court quashed the order rejecting bail, holding that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, seriousness of the offence is not a ground for refusal unless specific safety or justice-defeating grounds exist.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders setting aside; juvenile revisionist released on bail in father's custody with sureties.

Rahul Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2343 of 2018

¶3

Revisionist :- Rahul Rajpoot Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajnesh Kumar,Ambreesh Kumar,Digvijay Singh,Ram Sagar Yadav,Sudhir Kumar Singh

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajnesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

Record reveals that bail of juvenile-revisionist involved in Case Crime No.429 of 2017, under Sections 376, 323 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kamalganj, District Farrukhabad has been rejected by Juvenile Justice Board, vide order dated 19.1.2018.

¶8

Appeal there-against has also been dismissed vide judgement and order dated 15.05.2018 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Farrukhabad in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2018.

¶9

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

¶10

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 juvenilerevisionist is in custody since 29.07.2017. It has been further contended that applicant revisionist has been

¶11

declared juvenile vide order dated 23.10.2017 passed by Juvenile Justice Board. Admittedly, no appeal or revision has been filed against the same which has become final.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for State opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the factam of juvenility of the accused-revisionist.

¶13

As per prosecution story, juvenile-revisionist is alleged to have taken away victim in the bushes and committed rape on her. On the application of informant, Case Crime No.429 of 2017, under Sections 376, 323 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act was registered against him.

¶14

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.

¶15

"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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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

¶18

home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order."

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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, 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.

¶22

Let juvenile-revisionist- Rahul Rajpoot involved in Case Crime No.429 of 2017, under Sections 376, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Officence Act 2012, P.S. Kamalganj, District Farrukhabad be released on bail in the custody of his father 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 juvenilerevisionist carefully and will not let him involve in any criminal case or associate with known or known criminals

¶23

and shall produce him when and wherever, as directed, before Juvenile Justice Board or any other Court.

¶24

Order Date :- 16.4.2019 Neeraj

Rahul Rajpoot v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Rajpoot 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anshu Sisaudia Vs State of U.P. and Another

Daroga Bhartiya @ Dheeraj Bhartiya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Chotu @ Dependra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jai Tiwari @ Yash @ Mili Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Hare Ram Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Harish Chand Bind Vs State of U.P. and Another