Allowed

Anuj Rajpoot v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2021CRLR/2405/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision was allowed granting bail to a juvenile revisionist against judgments rejecting bail in bail and appeal proceedings, holding that trivial grounds under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act do not justify refusal.

What did the court decide?

The orders rejecting bail were set aside; the juvenile revisionist was enlarged on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2405 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Anuj Rajpoot Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sharique Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amitabh Tripathi,Shraddha Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This revision has been preferred by the father of the revisionist Sri Ram Bahadur for release of the revisionist, who is minor, against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2020 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court NO. 25, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2020 (Anuj Rajpoot (Juvenile) Vs. State of U.P. and another) and also against the judgment and order dated 24.11.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Nagar, in Case Crime No. 292 of 2020, under sections 323, 506, 306, 354(Kha), 354(Gha) IPC and section 7/8 POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Bidhnoo, District Kanpur Nagar where by the bail application of revisionist has been rejected by the appellate court as well as Juvenile Justice Board.

¶7

Admittedly, the revisionist is a juvenile and special provisions are there for the bail of a juvenile.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. did not raise any dispute with regard to the aforesaid facts.

¶10

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 provides the provisions as to when bail to a juvenile can be refused.

¶11

"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 appears 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.

¶12

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

¶13

(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section(1) by the Board, it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order

¶14

sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order."

¶15

In view of the aforesaid provision, the bail application of the juvenile can be rejected only on the existence of the aforementioned grounds enumerated in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

¶16

Apart from it in the case of Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. [2010 (71) ACC 209 (Alld)] and Naurang (minor) Vs. State of U.P. [2010 (71) ACC 255 (Alld), this Court has expressed the similar view and has granted bail to the juvenile offender in heinous offence. Seriousness of offence is no ground to reject the bail to a juvenile.

¶17

Keeping in view the aforementioned legal position and the fact that in this case no such conditions exists, on the basis of which the bail application of a juvenile can be dismissed, therefore, the revision deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. order dated 19.12.2020 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 25, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2020 (Anuj Rajpoot (Juvenile) Vs. State of U.P. and another) and also against the judgment and order dated 24.11.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Nagar, in Case Crime No. 292 of 2020, under sections 323, 506, 306, 354(Kha), 354(Gha) IPC and section 7/8 POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Bidhnoo, District Kanpur Nagar are hereby set aside.

¶18

In these circumstances, revisionist is entitled for bail.

¶19

Let revisionist-Anuj Rajpoot be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond by the Father/legal guardian Sri Ram Bahadur and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board to the effect that he will not come into contact with other offenders.

¶20

Order Date :- 2.12.2021

¶21

RPD

Anuj Rajpoot v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj Rajpoot 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Manish Vs State of U.P. and Another

Afjal Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Kumar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another