Allowed

Abhishek Das v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2021CRLR/193/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the Single Judge set aside the bail rejection orders by the Juvenile Justice Board and Special Judge, holding that release on bail is mandatory unless specific exceptions under Section 12 of the POCSO Act are met, which were absent here.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; juvenile released on bail via personal bond by father with two sureties under supervision of District Probation Officer.

Abhishek Das Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 193 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Abhishek Das Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Buddha Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

This revision is directed against the order dated 07.11.2020 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge,Court No.8, Ballia in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2020 (Abhishek Das Versus State of U.P.) and the order dated 23.09.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ballia in Misc. Case No.15 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No.24 of 2020 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Ubhav, District Ballia, whereby the application for bail of the revisionist, Abhishek Das was rejected.

¶6

The revisionist is an accused in the aforesaid criminal case and he was declared juvenile by the Board on 09.09.2020 in conflict with law. The application for bail moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected by the Board vide order dated 23.09.2020 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 Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge which was rejected vide order dated 07.11.2020, hence this revision.

¶7

Heard Sri Buddha Prakash, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Pramod Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 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 the Board has 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

Bail of juvenile. - (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable 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 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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

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 setaside.

¶14

Revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.11.2020 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge,Court No.8, Ballia in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2020 (Abhishek Das Versus State of U.P.) and the order dated 23.09.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ballia in Misc. Case No.15 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No.24 of 2020 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Ubhav,

¶15

District Ballia are set aside.

¶16

Let the revisionist-Abhishek Das involved in aforesaid case 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, Ballia subject to the following conditions:

¶17

(i) that the natural guardian/father Chandrashekhar Das 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-Abhishek Das and his father Chandrashekhar Das will report to the District Probation Officer, Ballia 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, Ballia on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board determines.

¶21

Order Date :- 1.9.2021

¶22

MN/-

Abhishek Das v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Das 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

Nanhey Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashwani @ Monu Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rafikuddin and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aakash @ Aaka Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivam Vs State of U.P. and Another