Allowed

Tejpal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2021CRLR/820/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment sets aside orders rejecting bail for a juvenile accused under the POCSO Act. The court held that bail must be granted unless specific risks exist, noting the gravity of offences is not relevant for juveniles.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; revisionist released on bail with his father and two sureties as security, subject to undertakings and probation supervision.

Tejpal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 820 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Tejpal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Apul Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

The present criminal revision has been filed against the Judgement and order dated 6.1.2021 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act) / Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2020; whereby criminal appeal filed by the revisionist has been dismissed as well as for quashing the order dated 2.11.2020 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Budaun whereby the bail application of the revisionist (Juvenile) arising out of Case Crime No. 486 of 2019, under Sections-376-D, 323, 328 and 506 I. P. C. and Sections-5/6 of POCSO Act, P. S.-Sahswan, district-Budaun has been rejected.

¶6

The revisionist is an accused in the aforesaid criminal case and he was declared juvenile by the Board on 8.10.2020 in conflict with law. The application for bail moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected by the Board vide order dated 2.11.2020 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, Budaun which was rejected vide order dated 6.1.2021, 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 the Board rejected the bail application on the basis of surmises and conjecture whereas the report of District Probation Officer was in his favour. The co-accused has been granted bail by this Court on 3.9.2021 in Cr. Revision No. 777 of 2021 and the case of the present revisionist is on the similar footings. 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 6.1.2021 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act) / Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2020 and the order dated 2.11.2020 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Budaun arising out of Case Crime No. 486 of 2019, under Sections-376-D, 323, 328 and 506 I. P. C. and Sections-5/6 of POCSO Act, P. S.-Sahswan, district-Budaun are set aside .

¶15

Let the revisionist- Tejpal involved in Case Crime No. 486 of 2019, under Sections-376-D, 323, 328 and 506 I.P.C. and Sections-5/6 of POCSO Act, P. S.-Sahswan, district-Budaun 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, Budaun subject to the following conditions:

¶16

(i) that the natural guardian/father Om Pal 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- Tejpal and his father Om Pal will report to the District Probation Officer, Budaun 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

¶20

would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Budaun on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board determines.

¶21

Order Date :- 17.9.2021 Fhd

Tejpal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejpal v. State of U.P. 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

Smt. Indu Kapoor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Nafees Vs State of U.P. and Another

Asmit Pal Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ayyub Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagram Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Bahadur Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another