Allowed

Saif Ali v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2021CRLR/841/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed criminal revision by the father of a juvenile accused to set aside an order refusing bail. Relying on Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and precedents, the court ruled that the seriousness of the offence (including POCSO charges) is not a valid ground for denial. Bail was granted subject to a personal bond and no contact with other offenders.

What did the court decide?

Set aside order rejecting bail; enlarged revisionist-Saif Ali on bail with a personal bond by father and two sureties ensuring no contact with other offenders.

Saif Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 841 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Saif Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This revision has been preferred by the father of the revisionist for release of the revisionist, who is minor, against the judgment and order dated 10.12.2020 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court NO. 1, Amroha in Criminal Appeal (Juvenile) No. 23 of 2020 (Saif Ali Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 10.11.2020 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Amroha in case No. 31 of 2020 (State of U.P Vs. Sajid and others) arising out of case crime No. 191 of 2020, under section 376D/506 IPC and section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Amroha Dehat, District Amroha.

¶7

Admittedly, the revisionist is a juvenile and special provisions are there for the bail of a juvenile.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. did not raise any dispute with regard to the aforesaid facts.

¶10

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 provides the provisions as to when bail to a juvenile can be refused.

¶11

"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 appears 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

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

¶13

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

¶14

order."

¶15

In view of the aforesaid provision, the bail application of the juvenile can be rejected only on the existence of the aforementioned grounds enumerated in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

¶16

Apart from it in the case of Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. [2010 (71) ACC 209 (Alld)] and Naurang (minor) Vs. State of U.P. [2010 (71) ACC 255 (Alld), this Court has expressed the similar view and has granted bail to the juvenile offender in heinous offence. Seriousness of offence is no ground to reject the bail to a juvenile.

¶17

Keeping in view the aforementioned legal position and the fact that in this case no such conditions exists, on the basis of which the bail application of a juvenile can be dismissed, therefore, the revision deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Order dated 10.12.2020 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court NO. 1, Amroha in Criminal Appeal (Juvenile) No. 23 of 2020 (Saif Ali Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 10.11.2020 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Amroha in case No. 31 of 2020 (State of U.P Vs. Sajid and others) arising out of case crime No. 191 of 2020, under section 376D/506 IPC and section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Amroha Dehat, District Amroha are hereby set aside.

¶18

In these circumstances, revisionist is entitled for bail.

¶19

Let revisionist-Saif Ali be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond by the father legal guardian Idrish Khan and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board to the effect that he will not come into contact with other offenders.Further, the parity of this revisionist shall not be claimed by other co-accused.

¶20

Order Date :- 17.11.2021

¶21

RPD

Saif Ali v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saif Ali 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Kumar (Minor) Vs State of Up and Another

Amit Kumar Sahu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pravin Chauhan and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin Kumar (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Yadav (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

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