Allowed

Shivam Jat (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2019CRLR/3806/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the Hon'ble Court allowed the appeal against the rejection of bail for a juvenile. The Court held that the impugned orders were liable to be set aside as they failed to consider the exceptions under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The revisionist was directed to be released on bail.

What did the court decide?

The orders rejecting bail were set aside and the revisionist was directed to be released on bail with personal bond and two sureties.

Shivam Jat (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3806 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Shivam Jat (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Sudhir Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

This revision under Section 102 read with Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the order dated 4.9.2019 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act) Budaun in Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2019 (Shivam Jat vs. State of U.P.), dismissing the said appeal arising out of order dated 1.8.2019 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Budaun (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in Case Crime No. 383/2017, under Sections 363, 376D I.P.C. and Section 5G/6 POCSO Act and Section 66 I.T. Act, P.S. Bilsi, District Budaun rejecting the bail application of the revisionist (juvenile).

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned orders along with entire material on record.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that according to the facts on record the revisionist is below the age of majority i.e. 16 years,7 months and 24 days 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 5.7.2019 and that aforesaid period of detention must have caused reformative effect upon the revisionists-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 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.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further contended that the revisionist has been declared juvenile 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. It is contended that since the prosecutrix was examined as PW-2 in the trial court but she has not supported the prosecution version and has stated that she has sustained injury in an accident; the other co-accused, who was not

¶9

juvenile namely Ravi Yadav has been granted bail in Bail Application no. 2401 of 2018 vide order dated 23.1.2018.

¶10

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

Accordingly, the revision stands allowed. The order dated1.8.2019 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Budaun as well as 4.9.2019 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act) Budaun are set-aside.

¶17

The revisionist, Shivam Jat (minor) son of Bharat Singh resident of Nagla Jatan, PS-Bilsi, District-Budaun, involved in the aforesaid Case Crime No., 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.

¶18

Order Date :- 19.12.2019

¶19

Dhirendra/

Shivam Jat (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam Jat (Minor) 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raseed Khan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yashu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Nanak @ Jai Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Ishtiyaq Kankali @ Ninhe @ Nanhe Vs State of U.P.

Ummed Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mithlesh Vs State of U.P. and Another