Allowed

Rishabh Singh (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2020CRLR/1703/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision to set aside orders rejecting bail to a minor accused. The Court held that the Juvenile Justice Act requires specific grounds for denying bail and gravity of offence is not one; bail was granted with personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 26.2.2019 and 25.3.2019 were set aside and the applicant was released on bail with two sureties.

Rishabh Singh (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1703 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Rishabh Singh (Minor) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- K.S. Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

No one is present on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision even in the revised call.

¶6

The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the judgment and order 25.3.2019 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Court no. 1, Auraiya in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2019 (Rishabh Singh vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 26.2.2019 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Auraiya in S.T. No. 23 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime no.189 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, P.S. Vidhuna, district-Auraiya.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the accused is minor and as per first information report he was charged for enticing away the victim. He next submitted that the prosecutrix is major and she was a consenting party, had eloped from her house with the applicant after taking 50,000/- rupees and ornaments from her house on her own accord and gone to Faridkot (Punjab) and lived there for more than 15 days. It is also been submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and DPO report is in his favour and the applicant has remained confined in the child observation home for long since 14.6.2018.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has already been declared juvenile. Further submission is that applicant is juvenile and his appeal was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 26.2.2019. The appeal filed against the order of Juvenile Justice Board was also dismissed vide order dated 25.3.2019.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

which bail could be refused to juvenile. They are:-

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The order 26.2.2019 and 25.3.2019 in the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

¶19

Let the applicant Rishabh Singh 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:

¶20

(i) The applicant be given into custody of his father;

¶21

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

¶22

(iii) 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

(iv) 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

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by learned counsel for the applicant along with a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶25

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of

¶26

such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶27

Order Date :- 3.9.2020 Faridul

Rishabh Singh (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishabh Singh (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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Saveeta Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sadiq Vs State of U.P.

Yunus Vs State of U.P.

Shaqir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunny Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another