Allowed

Afzal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2019CRLR/4193/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the court examined the rejection of bail for a juvenile accused of sexual offences under the POCSO Act. Relying on Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act and prior precedents, the court held that offence seriousness is not a valid ground for bail refusal and allowed the revision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of bail rejection set aside; juvenile released on bond with sureties and undertaking.

Afzal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4193 of 2018

¶3

Revisionist :- Afzal

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and Sri Ajay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶8

Record reveals that bail of juvenile-revisionist involved in Case Crime No.249 of 2018, under Section 376, 452, 506, 328 I.P.C. & 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Nigohi, District Shahjahanpur has been rejected by Juvenile Justice Board, Shahjahanpur vide judgement and orders dated 23.10.2018.

¶9

Appeal there-against has also been dismissed vide judgement and order dated 26.10.2018 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act/VIII, Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2018. Orders of Courts below are impugned in the present criminal revision.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case. No offence against the revisionist is made out and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. It is further contended that no mark of injury has been found on the body of the victim. The juvenile-revisionist is in custody

¶11

since 26.4.2018. He has been declared juvenile by Board and order of Board has become final.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for State as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and supported the judgements of Courts below.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

"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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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."

¶18

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.

¶19

Apart from it, in the case of Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. [2010 (71) ACC 209 (Alld)] and Naurang (minor)

¶20

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.

¶21

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 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 orders are hereby set aside.

¶22

Let juvenile-revisionist- Afzal involved in Case Crime No.249 of 2018, under Section 376, 452, 506, 328 I.P.C. & 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Nigohi, District Shahjahanpur be released on bail in the custody of any of the parents on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties before the Juvenile Justice Board concerned to its satisfaction and to file an undertaking that he will look after the juvenilerevisionist 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 Juvenile Justice Board or any other Court.

¶23

Order Date :- 25.4.2019 Vivek Kr.

Afzal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afzal 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

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.

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

Nagendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shashi Kant Sharma Vs Hari Shanker and Others