Allowed

Kesh Kumar (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2020CRLR/3661/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the Court allowed the petition against orders by the Juvenile Justice Board and Sessions Judge that rejected bail for a juvenile accused. The Court held that the lower courts failed to properly consider Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act and that no material existed to justify denying bail.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders by the Juvenile Justice Board and Sessions Judge were set aside. The revisionist was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond through legal guardian and two sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3661 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Kesh Kumar (Minor) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Dinesh Kumar Gupta 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 Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Mahoba in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2019 (Kesh Kumar vs. State of U.P.), dismissing the said appeal arising out of order dated 4.6.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in Case Crime No. 23/2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376D I.P.C. and Section 6 of POCSO Act, PS-Panwadi, District-Mahoba 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 5 months and 23 days at the time of incident 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 14.2.2019 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.It is contended that other two co-accused, who are major and allegation of rape has been made against them as well, have been granted bail in Crl.Misc. Bail Application no. 31615 of 2019 vide order dated 20.11.2019.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

Accordingly, the revision stands allowed. The order dated 4.6.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board as well as 7.8.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Mahoba are setaside.

¶16

The revisionist, Kesh Kumar son of Maniram Rajpoot resident of Byarjo, PS-Mahobkanth, District-Mahoba, 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.

¶17

C.J.M. Mahoba was directed to submit explanation within two weeks as to why orders of the Court were not complied with and notice was not served to opposite party no. 2. In this behalf, C.J.M. has submitted explanation that he has received notice on 7.12.2019 and thereafter he ensured service of notice on opposite party no. 2. In view of it, explanation submitted by the C.J.M. Mahoba is sufficient. No further action is needed.

¶18

Order Date :- 6.1.2020 Dhirendra/

Kesh Kumar (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kesh Kumar (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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monu Alias Vivek Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Samina Begum and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Sajid @ Pappu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mehdi Hasan and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Pal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Upendra Pradhan @ Akhilesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.