Allowed

Chhotu @ Vijay Apchari (Minor) v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2021CRLR/1118/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court set aside orders rejecting bail for a juvenile accused, holding that the Board failed to consider Section 12 exceptions as no danger or lack of ends of justice was shown.

What did the court decide?

Revisionist Chhotu @ Vijay Apchari released on bail subject to personal bond with sureties, parental undertaking, school attendance, and reporting to Probation Officer.

Chhotu @ Vijay Apchari (Minor) Vs State of… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1118 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Chhotu @ Vijay Apchari (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Narendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Singh Sengar

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

This revision is directed against the order dated 24.3.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, (Rape and POCSO Act), Mahoba in Juvenile Appeal No.7 of 2021 and the order dated 12.9.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Jhansi in Case Crime No.707 of 2017 under Sections 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Mahoba, District- Mahoba, whereby the application for bail of the revisionist, Chhotu @ Vijay Apchari was rejected.

¶6

The revisionist is an accused in the aforesaid criminal case and he was declared juvenile by the Board on 25.12.2017 in conflict with law. The application for bail moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected by the Board vide order dated 12.9.2018 on the ground that his release on bail is likely to bring him into association with any unknown criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Being aggrieved the revisionist preferred an appeal before Sessions Judge,Allahabad which was rejected vide order dated 24.3.2021, hence this revision.

¶7

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

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case; that there is no specific role has been assigned to the present revisionist; that there is no no weapon of assault has been recovered from his possession or on his pointing out; that another co-accused Subhash Rajpur has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 2556 of 2018 vide order dated 20.11.2020 and case of the applicant is on similar footings. It is further argued that the Board rejected the bail application on the basis of surmises and conjecture whereas the report of District Probation Officer was in his favour. There was nothing on record to bring the case of the revisionist within the purview of any of the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act.

¶9

The bail application of Juvenile has to be decided in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Act which reads as follows:

¶10

12. Bail of juvenile. - (1) When any person accused of a bailable or nonbailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety [or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release

¶11

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.

¶12

The aforesaid 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. No such report was filed by the Probation Officer or the police so as to bring the case of the revisionist within the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act.The report of the District Probation Officer was only to the effect that the parents of the revisionist have no control over the accused-revisionist and he requires proper guidance and supervision There is nothing on record to show that 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 on record to show that the release of the revisionist on bail would defeat the ends of justice. The gravity of the offence is not a relevant consideration for grant of bail to a juvenile.

¶13

In these circumstances, the Board was not justified in rejecting the bail application of the revisionist.

¶14

Learned Sessions Judge has also not considered the provisions of Section 12 of the Act in proper perspective. Thus, both the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be set-aside.

¶15

Revision is allowed. The impugned dated 24.3.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, (Rape and POCSO Act), Mahoba in Juvenile Appeal No.7 of 2021 and the order dated 12.9.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Jhansi in Case Crime No.707 of 2017 under Sections 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Mahoba, District- Mahoba are set aside.

¶16

Let the revisionist- Chhotu @ Vijay Apchari involved in Case Crime No.707 of 2017 under Sections 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Mahoba, District- Mahoba be released on bail subject to executing a personal bond by his father (natural guardian) with two solvent/reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, …... subject to the following conditions:

¶17

(i) that the natural guardian/mother- Smt. Ghassi Vishwakarma will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known criminal or be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.

¶18

(ii) that the father will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juvenile will be placed in a school and encouraged to his studies and not allowed to waste his time in unproductive and mere recreational pursuits.

¶19

(iii) The Juvenile- Chhotu @ Vijay Apchari and his mother Smt. Ghassi Vishwakarma will report to the District Probation Officer, Mahoba on the first Monday of every month with effect from the first Monday of the month next after release from custody, and, if during any calendar month the first Monday falls on a holiday then on the following working day.

¶20

(iv)The District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the revisionist and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Mahoba on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board determines.

¶21

Order Date :- 13.9.2021 Fhd

Chhotu @ Vijay Apchari (Minor) v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhotu @ Vijay Apchari (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

Rajiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Niyaz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arvind Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shiv Prasad Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Kumar @ Tinku Vs Sangeeta

Om Prakash and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another