Allowed

Gopi Kumar (Juvenile) v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2019CRLR/3008/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the criminal revision praying for bail for a juvenile accused. It found the lower courts erred in rejecting the bail application without justifying the exceptions to Section 12 of the Act. The impugned orders were set aside, and the juvenile was granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The revision was allowed; the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and Sessions Judge setting aside bail were set aside, and the revisionist was granted bail on personal bond and sureties.

Gopi Kumar (Juvenile) Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3008 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Gopi Kumar (Juvenile) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Hemant Kumar,Pradeep Kumar Keshri

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶6

Case is called out in the revised list.

¶7

As per the office report dated 28.11.2019, C.J.M., Chandauli has submitted a report that notice has been served upon opposite party no.2 through heir, yet no one has appeared on her behalf.

¶8

This revision is directed against the order dated 18.7.2019 passed by learned First Additional Session Session Judge, Chandauli in Criminal Appeal No.38 of 2019 (Gopi Kumar vs. State of U.P.), dismissing the said appeal arising out of order dated 15.6.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Chandauli (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in Case Crime No. 323/2018, under Sections 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Alinagar, District- Chandauli rejecting the bail application of the revisionist (juvenile).

¶9

Heard Sri Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned orders along with entire material on record.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that admittedly the revisionist was declared juvenile in conflict with law and his age was determined to be 15 years, 03 months and he has falsely implicated in the present case. According to prosecution itself the victim is aged about 18 years and the version of rape is not supported by medical evidence.

¶11

Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that there is no adverse opinion recorded by the District Probation Officer in its report 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. Learned counsel for the revisionist

¶12

states that it is merely ipse dixit of the courts below. 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 5.10.2018 and that aforesaid period of detention must have caused reformative effect upon the revisionistjuvenile 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 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.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

In these circumstances, the Board was not quite justified in rejecting the bail application of the revisionist. 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.

¶19

Accordingly, the revision stands allowed. The order dated 15.6.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Chandauli as well as 18.7.2019 passed by learned First Additional Session Session Judge, Chandauli are set-aside.

¶20

The revisionist- Gopi Kumar (Juvenile) son of Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, R/o Nai Basti Alinagar, Police Station- Alinagar, District- Chandauli, involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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.

¶21

Order Date :- 12.12.2019 Vikas

Gopi Kumar (Juvenile) v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopi Kumar (Juvenile) 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikki Vs State of U.P.

Dheerendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Shilpi Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babu Ram and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Danish Miya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another