Allowed

Akash v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2021CRLR/837/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court set aside the bail rejection orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Criminal Appeal dismissed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge. The Court held that the Board failed to establish reasonable grounds under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act to deny bail, noting that gravity of offence alone is not a relevant consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Additional District & Sessions Judge were set aside. The revisionist was released on bail subject to a personal bond and specific conditions r

Akash Vs State of U.P. and Another — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 837 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Akash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ratnesh Srivastava,Govind Saran Hajela,Om Narayan Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

As per report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha dated 03.08.2021, notice issued to opposite party no.2 has been served personally. However, despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2.

¶6

This revision is directed against the order dated 05.01.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Amroha whereby the bail application of the revisionist in Case No. 36 of 2020 (Akash vs. State of UP and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 292 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 302, 307, 325, 34 IPC, Police Station Didauli, District Amroha was rejected as well as the order dated 02.03.2021 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge(POCSO Act), Court No.1, Amroha whereby the Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2021 filed against the same has also been dismissed.

¶7

The revisionist is an accused in the aforesaid criminal case and he was declared juvenile by the Board on 10.11.2020 in conflict with law. The application for bail moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected by the Board vide order dated 05.01.2021 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 Additional District &

¶8

Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Amroha which was rejected vide order dated 02.03.2021, 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 present FIR has been lodged against as many as sixteen accused persons including the present revisionist levelling general allegations against them. No specific role has been assigned to the revisionist. It is next submitted that other co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail by this Court, copy of bail orders has been annexed as Annexure No.6 to the affidavit. Coaccused Kamal Kant who was also declared juvenile by the Board has already been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.09.2021 passed in Criminal Revision NO. 984 of 2021. 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

12. 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

¶13

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 setaside.

¶17

Revision is allowed . The impugned order dated 02.03.2021 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Amroha in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2021 (Akash vs. State of UP and others) and the order dated 05.01.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Amroha in Case No. 36 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 292 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 302, 307, 325, 34 IPC, Police Station Didauli, District Amroha are set aside.

¶18

Let the revisionist- Akash involved in aforesaid case be released on bail subject to executing a personal bond by his maternal uncle Ranvir Singh with two solvent/reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Amroha subject to the following conditions:

¶19

(i) that the guardian/maternal uncle Ranvir Singh 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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(iii) The Juvenile- Akash and his maternal uncle Ranvir Singh will report to the District Probation Officer, Amroha 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.

¶22

(iv) The District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the revisionist and regularly draw up his social

¶23

investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Amroha on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board determines.

¶24

Order Date :- 22.9.2021 Vikas

Akash v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akash 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anees Ahmad Vs State of Up and Another

Haidar Ali and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Girrraj Singh Vs Balvir Singh and Another

Pushpendra and 4 Ors. Vs State of Up and Another

Remo D Souza Vs State of U.P. and Another

Himanshu Vs State of Up and Another