Allowed

Mohit Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2021CRLR/776/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision allowed setting aside orders rejecting bail for a juvenile accused. Court held Section 12 mandates bail release unless reasonable grounds for danger or dealing of justice exist, finding no such evidence in this case.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders by Sessions Judge and Juvenile Justice Board set aside. Accused Mohit Kumar released on bail with personal bond and conditions including education and supervision.

Mohit Kumar Vs State of Up and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 776 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Mohit Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rakesh Tripathi I,Sundeep Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satish Chandra Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

This revision is directed against the order dated 8.2.2021 passed by Sessions Judge, Hapur in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2021 of (Mohit Kumar Versus State of U.P.) and the order dated 13.01.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Hapur in Case Crime No. 342 of 2020 under Sections 302 I.P.C., Police Station Hapur Dehat, District- Hapur, whereby the application for bail of the revisionist,Mohit Kumar was rejected.

¶6

The revisionist is an accused in the aforesaid criminal case and he was declared juvenile by the Board on 25.9.2020 in conflict with law. The application for bail moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected by the Board vide order dated 13.01.2021 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,Allahabad which was rejected vide order dated 8.2.2021, 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 revisionist was not named in the F.I.R. His named has cropped up as a participant in the crime during the course of investigation. Prosecution case against the revisionist stands upon circumstantial evidence which is fragile in nature. 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 with the provisions of section 12 of the Act which reads as follows:

¶10

12. 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 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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

Revision is allowed . The impugned order dated 8.2.2021 passed by Sessions Judge, Hapur in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2021 of (Mohit Kumar Versus State of U.P.) and the order dated 13.01.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Hapur in Case Crime No. 342 of 2020 under Sections 302 I.P.C., Police Station Hapur Dehat, District- Hapur, are set aside.

¶15

Let the revisionist- Mohit Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 342 of 2020 under Sections 302 I.P.C., Police Station Hapur Dehat, DistrictHapur, 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, Hapur subject to the following conditions:

¶16

(i) that the natural guardian/father Bijendra Kumar 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 that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(iii) The Juvenile- Mohit Kumar and his father Bijendra Kumar will report to the District Probation Officer, Hapur 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.

¶19

(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, Hapur on such

¶20

periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board determines.

¶21

Order Date :- 8.9.2021 Fhd

Mohit Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Molai Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay (Minor) Vs State of Up and Another

Arvind Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Vinay Tripathi and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anand Kumar Gaud Vs State of Up and Another

Nazim @ Nazir Vs State of U.P. and Anr.