Allowed

Manoj Kumar (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2019CRLR/4585/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revisional order allows the bail application of Juvenile Revisionist Manoj Kumar. The High Court held that the vertical bar of section 12 of JJ Act must guide the rejection of bail. The court found no ground under this section to justify the impugned rejection orders.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to juvenile revisionist in custody of father on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

Manoj Kumar (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4585 of 2018

¶3

Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Gyanendra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lal Behari Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for revisionist and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Record reveals that bail of juvenile-revisionist involved in Case Crime No. 387 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376-D IPC and 3/4 and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Mohammdabad Gohna, District Mau has been rejected by Juvenile Justice Board, vide judgement and order dated 10.09.2018.

¶7

Appeal there-against has also been dismissed vide judgement and order dated 17.11.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mau in Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2018.

¶8

Both the orders of Courts below are impugned in the present criminal revision.

¶9

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. The juvenile-revisionist is in custody since 28.08.2017. He further submits that he has been declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mau. Admittedly, no appeal or revision has been filed against the same which has become final.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for State opposed the

¶11

prayer for bail but he could not dispute the factam of juvenility of the accused-revisionist.

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

"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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(3) When such person is not released on bail under subsection(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."

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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, there is no ground under Section 12 of the said Act, so as to justify the rejection of bail of juvenile therefore, the revision deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders are hereby set aside.

¶21

Let juvenile-revisionist- Manoj Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 387 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376-D IPC and 3/4 and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Mohammdabad Gohna, District Mau be released on bail in the custody of his father 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.

¶22

Order Date :- 18.4.2019 Akram

Manoj Kumar (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar (Minor) 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hare Ram Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rahul Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Jai Tiwari @ Yash @ Mili Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Harish Chand Bind Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Rajbhar (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Brajesh Yadav (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another