Allowed

Sandeep Kol v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2021CRLR/554/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision in a bail matter involving a juvenile accused. The Court set aside lower court orders rejecting bail, holding that the Board failed to apply mandatory provisions of Section 12. The Court emphasized that bail is the rule for juveniles unless specific exceptions exist, order release, to prevent future dangers.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed and revisionist to be released on bail with a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two solvent sureties.

Sandeep Kol Vs State of Up and Another — Allahabad HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 554 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Sandeep Kol Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Dev Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

This revision is directed against the order dated 18.11.2020 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot, in Juvenile Appeal No. 21 of 2020 (Sandeep Kol Versus State of U.P.) and the order dated 6.10.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Chitrakoot, in Case Crime No. 39 of 2020 under Sections 302, 201, 404 I.P.C., Police Station Manikpur, District Chitrakoot, whereby the application for bail of the revisionist, Sandeep Kol was rejected.

¶6

The revisionist is an accused in the aforesaid criminal case and he was declared juvenile by the Board on 2.9.2020 in conflict with law. The application for bail moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected by the Board vide order dated 6.10.2020 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, Chitrakoot which was rejected vide order dated 18.11.2020, 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 it is a case of circumstantial evidence, there is no direct evidence against the revisionist; that informant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has assigned role of killing to co-accused; that the revisionist is in jail since 29.4.2020, for more than a year now. It is further argued 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

¶10

with the provisions of section 12 of the Act which reads as follows:

¶11

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

¶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 setaside.

¶15

Revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.11.2020 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot, in Juvenile Appeal No.21 of 2020( Sandeep Kol Versus State of U.P.) and the order dated 6.10.2020 passed

¶16

by Juvenile Justice Board, Chitrakoot in Case Crime No. 39 of 2020 under Sections 302, 201, 404 I.P.C., Police Station Manikpur, District Chitrakoot, are set aside.

¶17

Let the revisionist- Sandeep Kol involved in Case Crime No. 39 of 2020 under Sections 302, 201, 404 I.P.C., Police Station Manikpur, District Chitrakoot, be released on bail on his mother/father 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, Chitrakoot on the condition that he will keep the revisionist in her/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, Chitrakoot once in a two months regarding the progress made by the revisionist.

¶18

Order Date :- 4.8.2021 S.Verma

Sandeep Kol v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kol 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vipin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Chandar Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Alias Salman Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Jaganram @ Jagram Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others