Allowed

Chotu @ Dependra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2019CRLR/950/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision was filed by a juvenile accused challenging the rejection of bail by the Juvenile Justice Board and the dismissal of the appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court allowed the revision, holding that bail refusal requires specific grounds under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, not just the seriousness of the charges.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and Additional Sessions Judge were set aside. The juvenile revisionist was released on bail in the custody of his father on a personal bond and two su

Chotu @ Dependra Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 950 of 2018

¶3

Revisionist :- Chotu @ Dependra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Kameshwar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shravan Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned Counsel for revisionist, Sri M.P. Singh, learned AGA for State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

Record reveals that bail of juvenile-revisionist involved in Case Crime No. 642 of 2017, under Sections 376, 306 and 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Karvi, District Chitrakoot has been rejected by Juvenile Justice Board, Chitrakoot vide judgement and order dated 09.02.2018.

¶7

Appeal there-against has also been dismissed vide judgement and order dated 03.03.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1,Chitrakoot in Criminal Appeal No. 12 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 16.06.2017. He has been declared juvenile by Board and order of Board has become final.

¶10

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

¶11

As per prosecution story, juvenile-revisionist is alleged to have blackmail the victim and raped upon her.

¶12

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.

¶13

"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

¶14

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 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."

¶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 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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Let juvenile-revisionist- Chotu @ Dependra involved in aforesaid case crime number 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.

¶21

Order Date :- 10.4.2019 I.A.Siddiqui

Chotu @ Dependra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chotu @ Dependra 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

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Shama Parveen Vs Aaquil Hussain

Bismillah Vs State of U.P. and Another

Faizan Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

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