Allowed

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

Allahabad HC7 Sept 2021CRLR/4948/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision allowed rejecting impugned orders denying bail to a person declared juvenile. Court held Juvenile Justice Board erred in rejecting bail based on conjecture contrary to Section 12 of the Act without reasonable grounds for danger or defeating justice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail orders set aside; revisionist released on bail via personal bond with father and sureties subject to supervision conditions.

Chandu @ Chandra Prakash Vs State of U.P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4948 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Chandu @ Chandra Prakash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Jitendra Prasad Mishra,Anil Kumar Dubey,Virendra Kumar Yadav,Ram Milan Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

Sri Ram Milan Dwivedi, Advocate has stated that his name has wrongly been shown in the cause list for opposite party nos. 2 and 3, although he is also appearing for the revisionist.

¶6

As per the report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda dated 01.02.2020, notices issued to opposite party nos.2 and 3 have been duly served upon them but despite service of notice none has appeared on their behalf.

¶7

This revision is directed against the order dated 27.11.2019 passed by Additional Session Judge (FTC-I)/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Banda in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2019 (Chandu @ Chandra Prakash Versus State of U.P.) and the order dated 22.10.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Banda in Case Crime No.311 of 2019 under Sections 452,376 I.P.C., Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda, whereby the application for bail of the revisionist,Chandu @ Chandra Prakash was rejected.

¶8

The revisionist is an accused in the aforesaid criminal case and he was declared juvenile by the Board in conflict with law. The application for bail moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected by the Board vide order dated 22.10.2019 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 Additional Session Judge (FTC-I)/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Banda which was rejected vide order dated 27.11.2019, hence this revision.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned orders as well as material placed on record.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the Board has 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.

¶11

The bail application of Juvenile has to be decided in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act which reads as follows:

¶12

Bail of juvenile. - (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-

¶13

bailable 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 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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

Revision is allowed. The impugned order dated order dated 27.11.2019 passed by Additional Session Judge (FTC-I)/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Banda in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2019 (Chandu @ Chandra Prakash Versus State of U.P.) and the order dated 22.10.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Banda in Case Crime No.311 of 2019 under Sections 452,376 I.P.C., Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda are set aside.

¶18

Let the revisionist-Chandu @ Chandra Prakash involved in aforesaid case be released on bail subject to executing a personal bond by his father (natural guardian) with two solvent/reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Banda subject to the following conditions:

¶19

(i) that the natural guardian/father, Gajraj will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known criminal or be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the father will ensure

¶20

that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.

¶21

(ii) that the father will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juvenile will be placed in a school and encouraged to his studies and not allowed to waste his time in unproductive and mere recreational pursuits.

¶22

(iii) The Juvenile-Chandu @ Chandra Prakash and his father, Gajraj will report to the District Probation Officer, Banda on the first Monday of every month with effect from the first Monday of the month next after release from custody, and, if during any calendar month the first Monday falls on a holiday then on the following working day.

¶23

(iv)The District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the revisionist and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Banda on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board determines.

¶24

Order Date :- 7.9.2021

¶25

MN/-

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

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

Arun Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another