Allowed

Sachin Kumar (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2021CRLR/318/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision appealing bail rejection orders against a juvenile accused of heinous offences. Quoting Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act and precedents, the court held bail cannot be refused merely due to offence seriousness. The impugned orders were set aside, and bail was granted to the juvenile on a personal Bond.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 21.12.2020 and 3.12.2020 set aside; revisionist (Sachin Kumar) enlarged on bail via personal bond.

Sachin Kumar (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 318 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Sachin Kumar (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Bali Ram,Ram Manohar Kashyap Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This revision has been preferred by the father of the revisionist for release of the revisionist, who is minor, against the judgment and order dated 21.12.2020 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act, court no. 1 Ghazipur in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No 91 of 2020 (Sachin Kumar Vs. State of U.P.) and the order dated 3.12.2020 passed by leaned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur in No. 127 of 2020 (State Vs. Sachin Kumar) arising out of case crime NO. 280 of 2020, under sections 363, 366, 376-DA, 120-B IPC and section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, P.S Mardah, District Ghazipur.

¶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 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

¶14

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 21.12.2020 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act, court no. 1 Ghazipur in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No 91 of 2020 (Sachin Kumar Vs. State of U.P.) and the order dated 3.12.2020 passed by leaned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur in No. 127 of 2020 (State Vs. Sachin Kumar) arising out of case crime NO. 280 of 2020, under sections 363, 366, 376-DA, 120-B IPC and section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, P.S Mardah, District Ghazipur are hereby set aside.

¶18

In these circumstances, revisionist is entitled for bail.

¶19

Let revisionist-Sachin Kumar (Minor) be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond by the father/legal guardian Sri Brijesh Ram 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 :- 17.11.2021

¶21

RPD

Sachin Kumar (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Kumar (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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Kumar (Minor) Vs State of Up and Another

Amit Kumar Sahu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pravin Chauhan and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saif Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Yadav (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P.and Another