Allowed

Rahul Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2019CRLR/2869/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision was filed against Bail orders rejecting the prayer of a juvenile accused in a POCSO case. The High Court found no reasonable grounds for keeping the juvenile in custody, set aside impugned orders, and directed issuance of personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders against bail were set aside; petitioner to be released on personal bond through guardian and two sureties.

Rahul Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2869 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Rahul Kushwaha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

This revision is directed against the judgement and order dated 29.01.2019 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act, Kushinagar in Criminal Appeal No.04 of 2019 (Rahul Kushwaha vs. State of U.P.), dismissing the said appeal arising out of order dated 02.01.2019 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Kushinagr, Padrauna (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in Case Crime No.245 of 2018 2018 (State Versus Rahul Kushwaha), under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC, section 3/4 POCSO and section 3(2)V SC/ST Act, Police Station Kaptanganj, District-Kushinagar rejecting the bail application of the revisionist (juvenile).

¶6

Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsels for the revisionist, as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned orders along with entire material on record.

¶7

No one appears for O.P. No. 2.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the opinion recorded by the District Probation Officer in its report that in the event the revisionist (juvenile in conflict with law) is released on bail, there is possibility of his going in the company of known and unknown criminals. However, neither Juvenile Justice Board nor appellate court has detailed the basis to arrive at such a conclusion. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that it is merely ipse dixit of Probation Officer unsupported by any evidence. It is further submitted that according to the facts on record the revisionist is below the age of majority and is juvenile in conflict with law. It was further submitted that ordinarily such accused is being released on bail unless his case falls under the exceptions that have been provided under the Act. Submission is that the reasoning given in both the impugned orders is very superficial and is not very convincing and is more in the nature of a facewash. Further submission is that the applicant is already in custody since 25.06.2018 and that aforesaid period of detention must have caused reformative effect upon the revisionist-juvenile and he should be given another chance to live a normal life on the supervision of his parents. Counsel has also tried to point out that the impugned

¶9

orders have not been passed keeping the true spirit of the law that has been laid down with regard to juvenile in conflict with law.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is next argued that prosecutrix was major and appears to be consenting party. He has also argued that District Probation Officer in its report has reported that dispute is going between the family of first informant and revisionist and the revisionist was the main accused who was involved in commission of crime. However, as per the medical examination report of the victim, there was no physical and genital injury was found to be present on the victim. It is further contended that the revisionist has been declared juvenile, his date of birth is 03.02.2001 but his bail application has been rejected by the learned Board as well as by learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal without any convincing basis for giving finding that if the revisionist is released he is likely to come into association with several known and unknown criminals and expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶11

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.

¶12

I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and perused the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below along with entire material on record as well as the provisions of the Act.

¶13

The provisions of bail to a juvenile is given in Section 12 of the said Act.

¶14

The said provision provides that a juvenile accused has to be released on bail unless there are 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. There is no any basis or material which may bring the case of the revisionist within the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act.

¶15

There is no such substantial material or evidence on record to show that by release on bail, the revisionist would come in association with any known criminal or his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. There is also nothing very substantial on record to show that the release of the revisionist on bail would defeat the ends of justice.

¶16

In these circumstances, the Board was not quite justified in rejecting the bail application of the revisionists. Learned Sessions Judge also does not appear to have considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Act in its proper perspective. Thus, both the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be set-aside.

¶17

Accordingly, the revision stands allowed. The order dated 2.1.2019 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kushinagar, Padrauna as well as judgement and order dated 29.01.2019 passed by learned I-Addl. Sessions Judge,/Special Jude, POCSO Act, Kushinagar, Padrauna are setaside.

¶18

The revisionist, Rahul Kushwaha son of Jhinku, resident of Village Barahiya urf Kaptanganj, Ward No. 13, Police Station Kaptanganj, Police Station Kaptanganj, District- Kushinagar, Padrauna involved in aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond through his legal guardian and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Board concerned.

¶19

Order Date :- 10.12.2019

¶20

RPD

Rahul Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kushwaha 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Braj Pal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Kishan Vs State of U.P.

Santosh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Vs State of Up and Another

Om Shri Vs State of Up and Another

Ajay Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others