Allowed

Abhishek Pathak (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jun 2020CRLR/1062/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the Hon'ble court allowed the petition, set aside impugned orders denying bail, and granted bail to the minor applicant Abhishek Pathak under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, finding no grounds for rejection.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions.

Abhishek Pathak (Minor) Vs State of U.P… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1062 of 2020

¶3

Revisionist :- Abhishek Pathak (Minor) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Yadav,Sushil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant through video conferencing. Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned A.G.A is present in chamber.

¶6

The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the judgment and order dated 18.2.2020 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Banda in Criminal Appeal no. 14 of 2019, arising out of order dated 22.10.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Banda in pursuance to Case Crime no. 156 of 2019, under Sections 392 and 411 I.P.C., P.S. Atarra, district-Banda.

¶7

As per prosecution case, the informant was a auto driver. On 20.7.2019 at about 3:00 p.m. after lifting passengers in auto bearing no. UP90C6474 he had gone towards Attarra from Visanda and as and when he reached near Aaoo 'puliya' two motorcycle borne miscreants after chasing the auto stopped him. Out of two miscreants, one came near the complainant and on the gun point looted money, mobile phone and Adhar card from passengers.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that neither applicant was named in the FIR nor he has committed any offence. He is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive. No incriminating article or material has been recovered either from the applicant or on his pointing out. There is no public witness of the alleged incident and no proper identification parade was conducted by the police to ascertain the real culprit. He also submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and DPO report in his favour and the applicant has remained confined in the child observation home since 21.7.2019.

¶9

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has already been declared juvenile.

¶10

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that it is not in dispute that the applicant is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (here-in-after referred to as 'Juvenile Justice Act'). It has been submitted that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act prayer for bail of a juvenile can be rejected 'if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release wound defeat the ends of justice'.

¶11

It has been submitted that no such grounds are available on record to deny bail to the applicant.

¶12

This court is to see whether the opinion of the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and orders are in consonance with the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile. They are:-

¶13

(1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or

¶14

(2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or

¶15

(3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice?

¶16

Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail in Section 12 of the Act.

¶17

It has been submitted that gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration for refusing grant of bail to the juvenile as has been held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB) and it has been a consistent view of various courts. It has been submitted that there exist no material to justify rejection of bail on the grounds envisaged by Section 12 of the Act.

¶18

Learned AGA has opposed prayer for bail but he could not demonstrate from the record that there existed any of the grounds on which bail application of a juvenile could be rejected keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

¶19

In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The order 22.10.2019 and 18.2.2020 in the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

¶20

Let the applicant Abhishek Pathak involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶21

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;

¶22

(ii) The applicant through guardian shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;

¶23

(iii) The applicant through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

Order Date :- 5.6.2020 Faridul

Abhishek Pathak (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Pathak (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

Constable Surendra Singh Vs State of Up and Another

Amit Pratap Singh Vs State of Up and 2 Other

Ajay Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rani Devi Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Abhishek Pathak (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another