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

In Chamber

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2138 of 2019

Revisionist :- Ajay Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Akhilesh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Akhilesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist through video conferencing and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned A.G.A., who is present in the chamber.

¶6

The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the judgment and order dated 6.3.2019 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Ballia in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2019 (Smt. Poonam Verma vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as order dated 15.2.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ballia in Misc. Case no. 132 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime no. 262 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, P.S. Sikanderpur, district-Ballia.

¶7

Learned counsel for the juvenile-accused submitted that the victim, Apsara Parveen is aged about sixteen years. From the perusal of the facts stated by her in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. (annexure-5), it appears that she was in consensual relationship with the juvenile-accused, who had eloped with the juvenile-accused, Ajay Kumar Verma and traveled with him to several places by public transport having ample opportunities to escape or raising cries for help but she did not do so. He also submitted that the Juvenile-accused has no criminal history and DPO report is in his favour and the juvenile-accused has remained confined in the child observation home since 30.11.2018.

¶8

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

¶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 (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

¶10

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 aswell 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 15.2.2019 and 3.6.2019 in the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

¶20

Let the applicant Ajay Kumar Verma 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 :- 4.6.2020 Faridul

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanika Swami Vs State of Up and Another

Raj Nath Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Jitendra (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Constable Surendra Singh Vs State of Up and Another

Amit Pratap Singh Vs State of Up and 2 Other

Akshay Kumar Vs State of U.P.