Allowed

Rajeev Kumar (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC17 Jul 2019CRLR/796/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal revision against bail rejection orders for a juvenile accused of sexual molestation. It held that lower courts erred by ignoring mandatory statutory provisions for bail under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 regarding a minor below 16 years. The revision was allowed and the accused released on bail.

What did the court decide?

The revisionist be released on bail on a personal bond of Rs. one lac with two sureties and an undertaking to avoid association with hardened criminals.

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

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 796 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Rajeev Kumar (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Mool Chandra Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ankur Jee Srivastav,Lalit Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Mool Chandra Maurya, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Lalit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8 Etah in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2018 (CNR No. UPET-01006598-2018) (Rajeev Kumar vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 24.07.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Etah in Case Crime No. 137 of 2018 under section 376, 506 IPC, Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Baghwala, District Etah whereby both the Courts below have rejected the bail application moved on behalf of the revisionist.

¶8

It is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as Appellate Court have passed the impugned orders erroneously by which they have rejected the application of bail of the accused-revisionist, who is a minor of below 16 years as per the determination of age made by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 07.07.2018. The accused-revisionist is lying in jail since 09.04.2018, the outer limit for which the accused can be punished for the offence is only three years. He is absolutely innocent as in the social investigation report nothing adverse has been found to the effect that if he is released on bail, he would come in association with hardened criminals. The trial court has erroneously mentioned that the purpose of justice would be frustrated in case the accused-revisionist is released on bail. He has further pointed out that in the medical examination report of the victim, no injury has been found to have been caused either on her person or on her private part.

¶9

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail of the accused-revisionist and has argued that accused was major on the date of occurrence but he did admit that no appeal was preferred against the order dated 07.07.2018 whereby the Juvenile Justice Board had determined the age of the juvenile and found him to be a minor below 16 years and he had also drawn the attention that in the impugned order of the appellate court, it is recorded that the accused had bad habits and would come in association with criminal element, if he is released on bail.

¶10

I have gone through the record. As per FIR, the occurrence has taken place on 17.3.2018 when the victim had gone for attending nature's call and it was then that the accused-applicant had caught of hold her and had

¶11

molested her and when the victim screamed out loudly, the accused fled from there leaving her and thereafter the grandfather of the victim had got the victim recovered and the FIR was lodged at P.S. Baghwala, District Etah on 06.04.2018 under sections 376, 506 IPC and section 4 of POCSO Act.

¶12

I have gone through the medical examination report in which it is clearly mentioned that the victim has not been found to have suffered any injury on her person nor on her private part. The accused is lying in jail since 09.04.2018. He is below 16 years of each as per the age determination order of the Juvenile Justice Board. A perusal of the impugned orders would indicate that both the forum below have rejected the bail application of the accused-revisionist only on the ground of offence being very serious/heinous and they have not taken into consideration the mandatory provision of grant of bail as provided under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) (Amended) Act 2015 wherein it is laid-down that the bail could be refused to the accused-juvenile only when he is likely to come into association with any known criminal or would be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. No such evidence appears to be there on record, collected by the prosecution side including that of social investigation report which would indicate evidence to above effect.

¶13

In view of the above, this is found to be a fit case for grant of bail. The revision deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of Juvenile Justice Board dated 24.07.2018 as well as order dated 05.02.2019 of the appellate court are set aside.

¶14

Let the Juvenile revisionist- Rajeev Kumar (Minor) be released on bail on his father Sri Satya Prakash furnishing a personal bond of Rs.one lac and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board on furnishing an undertaking that he shall not allow the revisionist to come in association with any hardened criminal and shall take care of his education and well being and that on each and every date of trial, he shall also appear before the court concerned. In case, he makes any default, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail.

¶15

Order Date :- 17.7.2019

¶16

Rajeev Kumar (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar (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

Rihana Begum and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kailash and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Shamshad Ahmad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Nagma Nasihat Lari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kallu @ Narendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another