Allowed

Satendra @ Bhola v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2020CRLR/777/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision filed to quash orders rejecting bail to a juvenile accused in a POCSO case. The Court held that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act does not consider the gravity of the offence. Finding no statutory ground for detention, the bail prayer was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The revision is allowed; impugned orders set aside; applicant released on bail with personal bond and sureties.

Satendra @ Bhola Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 777 of 2020

¶3

Revisionist :- Satendra @ Bhola Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Revisionist :- Prakash Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Sri Mukesh Kumar, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 2, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the judgment and order 23.1.2020 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court no. 7, Aligarh in Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 2019 (Satendra @ Bhola vs. State of U.P. and another), under Section 52 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as well as order dated 30.11.2019 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh in S.T. No. 104 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime no. 104 of 2019, under Sections 354Kha, 376 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, P.S. Gonda, district-Aligarh.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although the applicant is named in the first information report but the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Annexure-3) has not supported the prosecution case. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Annexure-4) has not specifically made allegation of rape against the applicant. The victim was got medically examined and her medical report does not indicate any marks of violence, injury or sexual assault. He further submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is also been submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and DPO report in his favour and the applicant has remained confined in the child observation home since 3.7.2019.

¶9

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 30.11.2019. The appeal filed against the order of Juvenile Justice Board was also dismissed vide order dated 23.1.2020.

¶10

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.

¶11

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 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 30.11.2019 and 23.1.2020 in the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

¶19

Let the applicant Satendra @ Bhola 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

Order Date :- 5.8.2020 Faridul

Satendra @ Bhola v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satendra @ Bhola 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Afzal @ Afzaal @ Kanja Vs State of U.P.

Ram Murat Vs State of U.P.

Satendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Km.Poonam Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Narendra Vs State of U.P. and Another