Allowed

Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2021CRLR/2210/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the criminal revision, setting aside orders rejecting bail for a declared juvenile. The court held that the Board and appellate court failed to comply with Section 12 parameters, as there was no evidence of danger to the juvenile or society.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 19.08.2020 and 15.10.2020 set aside; revisionist released on bail with personal bond and sureties under specific conditions.

Rahul Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2210 of 2020

¶3

Revisionist :- Rahul Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Lal Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.

¶5

The instant criminal revision under Section 102 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (herein-inafter referred to as 'Act') is directed against the order dated 15.10.2020 passed by Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO Act) Fatehpur District Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2020 ( State of U.P. Vs Rahul Yadav) by which appeal of the revisionist was dismissed and order dated 19.08.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur in Case No. 42/2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 135/2019 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kalyanpur, District Fatehpur by which prayer of release of revisionist was rejected.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for revisionist and Shri M.P. Singh Gaur learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

As per F.I.R. version of this case it was registered on 16.06.2019 as Case Crime No. 135/2019 against the revisionist under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act. Since the revisionist claimed juvenility, after holding preliminary assessment, the Juvenile Justice Board has declared the revisionist as juvenile on 22.07.2020 and it was held that at the time of incident his age was 16 years 03 Month 13 Days.

¶8

After being declared juvenile, revisionist filed an application for bail through his mother/guardian before Juvenile Justice Board which was rejected vide order dated 19.08.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur.

¶9

Against the order dated 19.08.2020 passed by The Juvenile Justice Board rejecting the application to release the revisionist on bail, appeal was filed which was rejected by order dated 15.10.2020 passed by Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO Act) Fatehpur District Fatehpur.

¶10

Against the impugned order dated 19.08.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur and order dated 15.10.2020 passed by Exclusive Special Judge (POCSO Act) Fatehpur District Fatehpur, this revision has been filed by the revisionist

¶11

on the ground that revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Impugned orders are against law and not passed keeping in view the spirit of law that has been laid down with regard to juvenile in conflict with law. The reasonings of the impugned orders are superficial, not convincing and not supported by any evidence.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of release of the revisionist on bail and submitted that learned Juvenile Justice Board and learned appellate court has rightly rejected the prayer to release him on bail considering the facts and circumstances of the case and provision of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act.

¶13

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties along with entire matter available on record.

¶14

Bail of juvenile in conflict with law has to be considered on parameters in Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act. Section 12(1) and (2) of Juvenile Justice Act 2015 regarding bail of juvenile provides:-

¶15

"(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or 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 person:

¶16

Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.

¶17

(2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board."

¶18

Contention raised on behalf of revisionist has been confined to the extent that the revisionist is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The revisionist has already been declared juvenile by the court of Juvenile Justice Board. There is no evidence on record that may indicate that the release of revisionist 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. Even Probation Officer has not reported any criminal

¶19

history of the revisionist or his family members. Thus, there is no basis supported with evidence for reaching on such conclusion that in the event of his release on bail there is possibility of his going into company of known criminal or his release would defeat the end of justice.

¶20

Considering the rival submissions, fact of the case, legal position for release of juvenile on bail, this Court is of the view that board was not justified in rejecting the bail application and also appellate court did not consider the provision of Section 12 of the Act in right perspective, both the orders are not sustainable and liable to be set aside.

¶21

In the result, this criminal revision succeeds and the impugned orders dated 15.10.2020 & 19.08.2020 are hereby set aside and reversed. Bail application of the revisionist stands allowed.

¶22

Let the revisionist Rahul Yadav be released on bail in aforesaid case upon his guardian furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur subject to the following conditions:-

¶23

(1) The guardian/mother will furnish an undertaking that on release of the revisionist on bail, the juvenile will not be permitted to go into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that his mother/guardian will ensure that juvenile will not repeat the offence.

¶24

(2) The revisionist through guardian shall file an undertaking to the fact that he shall remain present before the trial court on each fixed date.

¶25

Order Date :- 6.1.2021 Sharad/-

Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Yadav 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

Gajendra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hasna and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satrudhan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jakir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikash Tiwari @ Satya Prakash Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another