Allowed

Ajay (Minor) v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC7 Sept 2021CRLR/386/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed criminal revision against bail rejection of a juvenile accused under POCSO Act, holding that the Board and Sessions Judge failed to apply Section 12 (mandatory bail for juveniles) as no reasonable grounds existed to believe release would endanger him.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; juvenile released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties.

Ajay (Minor) Vs State of Up and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 386 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Ajay (Minor) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

This revision is directed against the order dated 23.11.2020 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2020 (Ajay Versus State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 237 of 2020 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Bilsanda, District- Pilibhit and the order dated 6.11.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Pilibhit in Case No.35 of 2020 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Bilsanda, District- Pilibhit, whereby the application for bail of the revisionist, Ajay was rejected.

¶6

The revisionist is an accused in the aforesaid criminal case and he was declared juvenile by the Board on 7.10.2020 in conflict with law. The application for bail moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected by the Board vide order dated 6.11.2020 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 Sessions Judge, Pilibhit which was rejected vide order dated 12.11.2020, hence this revision.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist 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 revisionist is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case; that the prosecutrix was medically examined and the doctor found no mark of injury on her private parts but 2 lacerated wound was found on upper and lower limb; that no dead or alive spermatozoa was seen on microscopic examination; that there was love affair between the prosecutrix and the revisionist; that there is contradiction in the statement of victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.; that the Board 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 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

¶11

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.

¶12

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, as held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P., 2010 (1) JIC 771 (LB).

¶13

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

¶14

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 set-aside.

¶15

Revision is allowed . The impugned order dated 23.11.2020 passed by passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2020 (Ajay Versus State of U.P.) and the order dated 6.11.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Pilibhit in Case No.35 of 2020 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Bilsanda, District- Pilibhit are set aside.

¶16

Let the revisionist- Ajay involved in Case Crime No. 237 of 2020 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police StationBilsanda, District- Pilibhit be released on bail on his father, natural guardian executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Pilibhit on the condition that he will keep the revisionist in his proper care and custody and will constantly contact his school management, if he continues with the studies and will report to the Juvenile Justice Board, Pilibhit once in a two months regarding the progress made by the revisionist.

¶17

Order Date :- 7.9.2021 Fhd

Ajay (Minor) v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay (Minor) v. State of Up 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basdev Vs State of U.P.

Amit Kumar and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tyrone Albert @ Tarun and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

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

Banshi Lal Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Chandu @ Chandra Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.