Allowed

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

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2019CRLR/682/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against rejection of bail for minor accused under POCSO. Held that seriousness of offence alone cannot justify bail denial. Set aside lower orders and granted bail subject to surety and educational safeguards.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of Juvenile Justice Board and appellate court set aside; accused released on bail with sureties and undertaking for education and custody.

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

¶1

Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 682 of 2019 Revisionist :- Zubaid (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Sunil Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶4

Accused-revisionist has preferred this revision against the judgment and order dated 18.1.2019 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/8 Additional Session Judge, Court No. 9 Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal N. 177 of 2018 (Zubaid Vs. State of U.P.), which was filed against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2018 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in Case Crime No. 1171 of 2018 (State Vs. Zubaid) under Section 376 IPC and ¾ Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad, whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board has dismissed the the bail application of the accused. The said order of dismissal of bail application has been upheld in the judgment and order of appeal dated 18.1.2019. Both the orders i.e. orders of Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court have been challenged before this Court.

¶5

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the accused-revisionist is minor boy of 10 years six months and seven days as per school certificate, while as per medical certificate, his age is 13 years, as has been determined by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 28.11.2018, which is annexed at page 61 to 63, which is undisputed document as no appeal or revision has been preferred against the said order. The juvenile Justice Board as well as appellate court, both have ignored the provisions, which are mentioned in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. Learned appellate court has erroneously upheld the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, which has dismissed the bail application of the accusedrevisionist contrary to the provisions of law. He also pointed out that in the social investigation report, nothing adverse has come on record against the accused-revisionist and yet his bail has been rejected.

¶6

I have gone through the impugned orders.

¶7

As per F.I.R., the prosecution case is that the victim aged about 8 years was returning home on 15.8.2018 from school after flag

¶8

hosting and at about 12 noon having found her alone, the accused-revisionist had dragged her inside the field of Jwar, where she was raped by him and pursuant to that, F.I.R. was lodged, which was registered as Case Crime No. 1171 of 2018, under Section 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P..S. Murad Nagar on 16.8.2018.

¶9

Record reveals that a copy of the medical report has been filed today (which is taken on record). No external injury or internal injury have been found to have been caused to the victim. The accused is lying in prison since 16.8.2018.

¶10

In social investigation report, it has been recorded that if the accused is released on bail, there was likelihood of him getting in association with known criminal and of getting him exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger. Both the courts below have dismissed his bail application.

¶11

From the perusal of the social investigation report, it is apparent that the accused was studying in class 5 at the time of occurrence and dearth was found in his going to school and that the accused deserved to be given further education and there was also necessity of family control to be exercised over the accused. The said social investigation report does not reveal any such thing against the revisionist, which would suggest that in case he would be released on bail, he would come in contact with hardened criminal, therefore, I find that the trial court as well as the appellate court have rejected bail application only on the ground of seriousness of the offence, which could not be a ground for rejection of bail.

¶12

In view of the above fact that accused-applicant is a minor boy of below 16 years of age, in these circumstances this is found to be a fit case for grant of bail. Both the orders i.e. order of Juvenile Justice Board dated 29.11.2018 and the appellate court dated 18.1.2019 deserve to be set aside and are, accordingly, set aside.

¶13

Accordingly, this revision is allowed.

¶14

Let the accused-revisionist be released in custody of his father on his furnishing two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, and a personal bond of same amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board subject to the condition that he shall also furnish an undertaking that he would not allow the accused-revisionist to fall in criminal hands and would take care of his eduction & well being etc. during pendency of this case.

¶15

Order Date :- 4.7.2019/A.P. Pandey

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zubaid (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

Mansha Ram and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Geeta Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Natthu Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Najakat and 8 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Arti Kumari Kanojia and Another Vs State of Up and Another