Allowed

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

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2020CRLR/3974/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed a criminal revision under Section 102 Cr.P.C. and Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, setting aside the Juvenile Justice Board and Sessions Court orders that rejected bail, holding insufficient material to justify the exceptions under the Act.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed. Impugned orders set aside. Revisionist granted bail on personal bond through guardian and two sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3974 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Sandeep Yadav(Minor) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Case has been called in the revised list. No one appears for the opposite party no. 2.

¶6

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 10.10.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No.126 of 2019 (Sandeep Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another), dismissing the said appeal arising out of order dated 12.9.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in Case Crime No.167/2019, under Sections 323, 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S.-Gola District-Gorakhpur rejecting the bail application of the revisionist (juvenile).

¶7

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

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that in the report of District Probation Officer he has observed that revisionist is juvenile in conflict of law, there is lack of proper care and attention by his family members and so far as his conduct with his neighbours is concerned, it is satisfactory, however, in the event the revisionist (juvenile in conflict with law) is released on bail, there is possibility of his going in the company of known and unknown criminals. It is further submitted that according to the facts on record the revisionist is below the age of majority i.e. 16 years and the victim as per the medical report is 18 years and from the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. it appears that she was having love affair with the revisionist for the past three years and the revisionist is said to have sexually exploited her on the pretext of marrying her.

¶9

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 20.6.2019 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

¶10

down with regard to juvenile in conflict with law.

¶11

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.

¶12

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

Accordingly, the revision stands allowed. The order dated 12.9.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur as well as 10.10.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Gorakhpur are set-aside.

¶19

The revisionist, Sandeep Yadav son of Sri Chandra Shekhar Yadav, resident of Pandepur, P.S.-Gola, District-Gorakhpur, 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.

¶20

Order Date :- 8.1.2020 Dhirendra/

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Yadav(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

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

Rahul Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

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