Allowed

Shubham (Minor) v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2021CRLR/604/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Cr. Rev. No. 604 of 2021, the Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary, J. allowed the revision filed by a juvenile, Shubham, against orders rejecting his bail. The court held that the lower courts failed to properly apply Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; revisionist released on bail subject to personal bond, mother as guardian, and two sureties to the satisfaction of the Board.

Shubham (Minor) Vs State of Up and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 604 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Shubham (Minor) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Shyam Sunder Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yash Pratap Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

This revision under section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the order dated 8.2.2021 passed by learned Exclusive Judge, POCSO Act, Fatehpur, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2021 (Shubham vs. State of U.P.) and impugned order dated 3.1.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in Case Crime No.101 of 2020, under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Hathgaon, District-Fatehpur, rejecting the bail application of the revisionist (juvenile).

¶6

From perusal of order sheet, it transpires that the learned counsel for O.P. No.2 was given last opportunity to file counter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel, holding brief of Sri Yash Pratap Singh, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned orders along with entire material on record which appears to be complete and enough sufficient to decide this revision.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Further submission is that the victim is consenting party. It is further contended that the revisionist has been declared juvenile but his bail application has been rejected by the learned Board as well as by learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal without any convincing basis giving finding that if the revisionist is released he is likely to bring him into association with several known criminals and expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, hence his release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the report of the District Probation Officer not recommending the release of the revisionist was without any substantial material on record and the findings given by the learned courts below are without very reasonable or convincing basis or material.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for O.P. No.2 vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and perused the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below along with entire material on record as well as the provisions of the Act.

¶12

The provisions of bail to a juvenile is given in Section 12 of the said Act, which provides as follows:-

¶13

" 12. (1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 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 person:

¶14

Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.

¶15

(2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under subsection (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board.

¶16

(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order.

¶17

(4 ) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail."

¶18

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. There is no such very convincing basis or material which may bring the case of the revisionist within the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act.

¶19

In these circumstances, the Board was not quite justified in rejecting the bail application of the revisionist. Learned Special Judge also does not appear to have considered the provisions of

¶20

Section 12 of the Act in its proper perspective. Thus, both the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be setaside.

¶21

Thus keeping in perspective the period of detention already undergone (more than two years) by the revisionist, Accordingly, the revision stands allowed . The orders impugned dated 13.1.2021 passed by the Board and 8.2.2021 passed by learned Exclusive Judge, POCSO Act, Fatehpur, are set-aside.

¶22

The revisionist- Shubham s/o Dinesh Singh, involved in aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond through his legal guardian Smt. Snehlata (mother) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Board concerned.

¶23

Order Date :- 20.9.2021 Vandana

Shubham (Minor) v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham (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

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash Nishad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramu Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Kamil and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Govind @ Govinda Vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Ramsakhi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mittha @ Vinit @ Prasant (Minor) Vs State of Up and Another