Allowed

Teetu (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2019CRLR/3843/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision against orders rejecting bail for a juvenile accused under the POCSO Act. The Court held that the Board and Special Judge erred by not applying Section 12 strictly, granting bail with surety.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; impugned orders set aside; revisionist released on bail with personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties.

Teetu (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3843 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Teetu (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Gyan Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

This revision is directed against the judgement and order dated 18.09.2019 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.03, Bulandshahar in Juvenile Appeal No.111 of 2019 (Teetu Versus State of U.P. and another) under Section 6 of POCSO Act and the order dated 06.09.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahar in Case Crime No.324 of 2018, Police Station Anoopshahar, District Bulandshahar whereby the application for bail of the revisionist, Teetuwas rejected.

¶6

The revisionist is an accused in the aforesaid criminal case and he was declared juvenile by the Board in conflict with law. The application for bail moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected by the Board vide order dated 06.09.2019 on the ground that his release on bail is likely to bring him into association with any unknown criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Being aggrieved the revisionist preferred an appeal before Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.03, Bulandshahar which was rejected vide order dated 18.09.2019, hence this revision.

¶7

Heard Sri Gyan Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Rajinish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned orders as well as material placed on record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist was not named in the F.I.R. His name has cropped up as a participant in the crime during the course of investigation. It is further argued that the Board rejected the bail application on the basis of surmises and conjecture whereas the report of District Probation Officer was in his favour. There was nothing on record to bring the case of the revisionist within the purview of any of the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act. It is further argued that there are material inconsistencies between the statements of the prosecutrix, especially in her statement

¶9

recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has stated that on the prompting of the villagers she has named accused persons. The prosecution case of gang-rape is not supported by the medical evidence.

¶10

He further argued that co-accused, Krishna Kumar who was also involved in the present case but is not juvenile has been granted regular bail on merits by another Bench of this Court on 15.4.2019 vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14383 of 2019. Photocopy of order granting bail to co-accused has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the affidavit.

¶11

The bail application of Juvenile has to be decided in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Act which reads as follows:

¶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 appear 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.

¶13

The aforesaid 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. No such report was filed by the Probation Officer or the police so as to bring the case of the revisionist within the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act.The report of the District Probation Officer was only to the effect that the parents of the revisionist have no control over the accused-revisionist and he requires proper guidance and supervision There is nothing on record to show that 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 on record to show that the release of the revisionist on bail would defeat the ends of justice. The gravity of the offence is not a relevant consideration for grant of bail to a juvenile, as held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P., 2010 (1) JIC 771 (LB).

¶14

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

¶15

Learned Sessions Judge has also not considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Act in proper perspective. Thus, both the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be setaside.

¶16

Revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.09.2019 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.03, Bulandshahar in Juvenile Appeal No.111 of 2019 (Teetu Versus State of U.P. and another) under Section 6 of POCSO Act and the order dated 06.09.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahar in Case Crime No.324 of 2018, Police Station Anoopshahar, District Bulandshahar are set aside.

¶17

Let the revisionist-Teetu involved in Case Crime No.324 of 2018 under Section 6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Anoopshahar, District Bulandshahar be released on bail on his mother/father executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahar on the condition that he will keep the revisionist in her/his proper care and custody and will constantly contact his school management, if he continues with the studies and will report to the Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahar once in a two months regarding the progress made by the revisionist.

¶18

Order Date :- 5.12.2019

¶19

MN/-

Teetu (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teetu (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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjeet Kumar Gond and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anand Tiwari@Nandu Vs State of U.P.

Ashwani Pandey @ Anoop Vs State of U.P.

Irshad Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Yadav @ Bablu Yadav Vs State of Up and Another

Parwaj Alam and Another Vs State of Up and Another