High Court allowed criminal revision against order rejecting bail of a juvenile accused under POCSO, citing failure of lower courts to consider Section 12(1) proviso of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
Revision allowed; impugned orders dated 30.10.2020 and 24.12.2020 set aside; bail granted with personal bond and two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 333 of 2021
Revisionist :- Abhishek Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Vikarm Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Vikram Singh Yadav learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.None appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2.
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 30.10.2020 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur in Case Crime No.116 of 2020 (State Vs. Abhishek Yadav) under Sections 376 (3), 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, P.S. Baresar, District Ghazipur, whereby the bail application of the revisionist-Juvenile has been rejected as well as against the judgment and order dated 24.12.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Newly Created POCSO Court No.2), District Ghazipur in Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2020 ( Abhishek Yadav Vs. State of U.P.), whereby criminal appeal filed against the aforesaid order has also been rejected.
It is submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that revisionist is juvenile and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein the victim has stated that she does not want to prosecute the revisionist and that the matter has been settled and thus the victim has not supported the prosecution version. Learned counsel thus submits that there is no allegation against the revisionist. He argues that admittedly, the revisionist is a juvenile and while deciding the bail application, the Juvenile Justice Board has solely considered the gravity of the offence alleged and had not even considered the requirement of the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act'). He argues that the Appellate Court had committed the same error in dismissing the appeal.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer.
I have perused the orders rejecting the bail application and the appeal, who do not record any reasons as required in terms of the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Act.
Considering the age of the revisionist who is minor and in custody since 31.05.2020, the revision deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned judgment and orders dated 30.10.2020 and 24.12.2020 are set aside. The bail application of the revisionist is also allowed.
Let revisionist Abhishek Yadav be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Juvenile Justice Board concerned.
Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be accepted as a true copy of this order.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.
The concerned Court shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021
S.Ali
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Juvenile Justice Board and Sessions Court erred in rejecting bail without considering the mandates of Section 12(1) proviso of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
Whether a juvenile revisionist accused under POCSO should be released on bail after the High Court points out the error in impugned orders.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vipin Chandra Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
