Allowed

Ankur Singh (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2019CRLR/4102/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Recorder dissented from the High Court's order rejecting bail for a juvenile in a serious POCSO case. The court held that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act provides specific grounds for refusal and that seriousness of offence is not a valid ground to deny bail to a juvenile.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail was set aside and the juvenile revisionist was directed to be released on bail in the custody of parents.

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

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4102 of 2018

¶3

Revisionist :- Ankur Singh (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Sheetala Prasad Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri S.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

Record reveals that bail of juvenile-revisionist involved in Case Crime No.200 of 2018, under Section 363, 366A, 376-D I.P.C. & 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Nagar, District Basti has been rejected by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, First, Basti vide judgement and order dated 30.10.2018.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the revisionist was not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case. While the victim has named the revisionist in her statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C, however, no identification parade has been done by the police. 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 juvenile-revisionist is in custody since 29.6.2018. He has been declared juvenile by Board and order of Board has become final.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for State opposed the prayer for bail and supported the judgement of court below.

¶10

As per prosecution story, juvenile-revisionist is alleged to have taken away the victim and raped on her.

¶11

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.

¶12

"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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section(1) by the Board, it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order."

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

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 order is hereby set aside.

¶19

Let juvenile-revisionist- Ankur Singh involved in Case Crime No.200 of 2018, under Section 363, 366A, 376-D I.P.C. & 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Nagar, District Basti be released on bail in the custody of any of the parents on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties before the court concerned to its satisfaction and to file an undertaking that he will look after the juvenile-revisionist carefully and will not let him involve in any criminal case or associate with known or known criminals and shall produce him when and wherever, as directed, before court concerned.

¶20

Order Date :- 25.4.2019 Vivek Kr.

Ankur Singh (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankur Singh (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

Rinku (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mannawar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Afzal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nagendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shashi Kant Sharma Vs Hari Shanker and Others