Allowed

Rahul v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2020CRLR/3407/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court quashed orders rejecting bail for a juvenile accused. Finding no substantial material indicating release would cause danger or defeat justice, the Court allowed the revision and ordered the juvenile's release on bail.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 19.7.2019 and 7.8.2019 set aside; revisionist to be released on bail via personal bond and sureties.

Rahul Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3407 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Kumar Dubey,Om Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

This revision under Section 102 read with Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the order dated 7.8.2019 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Maharajganj in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2019 dismissing the said appeal arising out of order dated 19.7.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Maharajganj (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in Case Crime No.173/2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act, PS-Paniyara, District-Maharajganj rejecting the bail application of the revisionist (juvenile).

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned orders along with entire material on record.

¶7

It is submitted that according to the facts on record the revisionist is below the age of majority i.e. 16 years 6 months and is juvenile in conflict with law. It was further submitted that ordinarily such accused is being released on bail unless his case falls under the exceptions that have been provided under the Act. Submission is that the reasoning given in both the impugned orders is very superficial and is not very convincing and is more in the nature of a facewash. Further submission is that the applicant is already in custody since 18.7.2018 and that aforesaid period of detention must have caused reformative effect upon the revisionists-juvenile and he should be given another chance to live a normal life on the supervision of his parents. Counsel has also tried to point out that the impugned orders have not been passed keeping the true spirit of the law that has been laid down with regard to juvenile in conflict with law.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further contended that the revisionist has been declared juvenile but his bail application has been rejected by the learned Board as well as by learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal without any convincing basis for giving finding that if the revisionist is released he is likely to come into association with several known and unknown criminals and expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that entire case has been fabricated by the opposite party no. 2, father of the victim though from the statement given by the victim before the doctor and

¶10

in the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that she wants to marry with the revisionist, she disclosed her age to be 16 years and the Board has determined age of the revisionist to be 12 years. It is argued that in view of big age difference between them, allegations against him are appears to be unbelievable and fabricated.

¶11

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.

¶12

I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and perused the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below along with entire material on record as well as the provisions of the Act.

¶13

The provisions of bail to a juvenile is given in Section 12 of the said Act.

¶14

The said provision provides that a juvenile accused has to be released on bail unless there are 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. There is no any basis or material which may bring the case of the revisionist within the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act.

¶15

There is no such substantial material or evidence on record to show that by release on bail, the revisionist would come in association with any known criminal or his release would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. There is also nothing very substantial on record to show that the release of the revisionist on bail would defeat the ends of justice.

¶16

In these circumstances, the Board was not quite justified in rejecting the bail application of the revisionists. Learned Sessions Judge also does not appear to have considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Act in its proper perspective. Thus, both the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be set-aside.

¶17

Accordingly, the revision stands allowed. The order dated 19.7.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Maharajganj as well as 7.8.2019 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Maharajganj are setaside.

¶18

The revisionist, Rahul son of Rambachan Chawhan resident of Mujari Tola Rasulpur, P.S.-Paniyara, District-Maharajganj, involved in the aforesaid Case Crime No., be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond through his legal guardian and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Board concerned.

¶19

Order Date :- 8.1.2020 Dhirendra/

Rahul v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Vipin Rai and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Priyanka Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 4 Other

Abhishek and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailesh Tripathi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Ji Yadav and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Yadav(Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another