Allowed

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

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2021CRLR/864/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary, J., allowed Criminal Revision No. 864 of 2021, setting aside orders rejecting bail for the juvenile revisionist. The court held that Section 12 of the JJ Act mandates bail unless specific exceptions exist, which were not convincingly established here.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 7.11.2020 and 13.1.2021 set aside; revisionist released on bail with personal bond via guardian and two sureties to satisfaction of the Board.

Mittha @ Vinit @ Prasant (Minor) Vs State of Up and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 864 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Mittha @ Vinit @ Prasant (Minor) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Puneet Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit which is taken on record.

¶6

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 13.1.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.2, Moradabad, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2020 (Virendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another) and impugned order dated 7.11.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Moradabad, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in Case No. 61 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 631 of 2020, under Sections 452, 147, 148, 149, 336, 302, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(xv) SC/ST Act, Police StationMajhol, District- Moradabad, rejecting the bail application of the revisionist (juvenile).

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist 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. It is further submitted that the co-accused Bablu, who is the named accused, has been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court. 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 A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and perused the impugned orders passed by the learned courts

¶11

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

¶20

Thus keeping in perspective the period of detention already

¶21

undergone (more than one year) by the revisionist, Accordingly, the revision stands allowed . The orders impugned dated 7.11.2020 passed by the Board and 13.1.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.2, Moradabad, are set-aside.

¶22

The revisionist- Mittha @ Vinit @ Prasant s/o Virendra Kumar, involved in aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond through his legal guardian Virendra Kumar (father) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Board concerned.

¶23

Order Date :- 20.9.2021 Vandana

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mittha @ Vinit @ Prasant (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

Parties & counsel

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

Shubham (Minor) Vs State of Up and Another