Allowed

Asmit Pal v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2021CRLR/924/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision allowed. Court set aside orders rejecting bail. Held that Juvenile Justice Board erred in rejecting bail under Section 12 POCSO as no reasonable grounds existed in record to believe release would pose danger or defeat justice. Granted bail with probation conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside. Revisionist released on bail via personal bond by mother with two sureties, subject to conditions including education, no contact with criminals, and probation monitoring.

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

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 924 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Asmit Pal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ayank Mishra,Vivek Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar Srivastava,Vishesh Kumar Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

This revision is directed against the order dated 25.2.2021 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-1, Moradabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2021 (Smt. Rubi Singh Versus State of U.P.) and the order dated 19.1.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Moradabad, in Case Crime No. 1176 of 2020 under Section 376 I.P.C. I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Civil Lines, District- Moradabad, whereby the application for bail of the revisionist, Asmit Pal, was rejected.

¶6

The revisionist is an accused in the aforesaid criminal case and he was declared juvenile by the Board on 4.12.2020 in conflict with law. The application for bail moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected by the Board vide order dated 19.1.2021on 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 Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1 Moradabad, which was rejected vide order dated, 25.2.2021, 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 belated F.I.R. has been lodged against the revisionist; that medical report does and site plan do not corroborate. 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

¶9

the revisionist within the purview of any of the exceptions provided in Section 12 of the Act.

¶10

The bail application of Juvenile has to be decided in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Act which reads as follows:

¶11

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 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

Revision is allowed . The impugned order dated 25.2.2021 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-1, Moradabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2021 (Smt. Rubi Singh Versus State of U.P.) and the order dated 19.1.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Moradabad, in Case Crime No. 1176 of 2020 under Section 376 I.P.C. I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Civil Lines, District- Moradabad, are set aside.

¶16

Let the revisionist- Asmit Pal involved in aforesaid case be released on bail subject to executing a personal bond by his mother (natural guardian) with two solvent/reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Moradabad subject to the following conditions:

¶17

(i) that the natural guardian 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 natural guradina will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.

¶18

(ii) that the natural guardian 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.

¶19

(iii) The Juvenile and his natural guardian will report to the District Probation Officer, Moradabadon, 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.

¶20

(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, Moradabad, on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board determines.

¶21

Order Date :- 16.9.2021 S.Verma

Asmit Pal v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asmit Pal 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

Purnima Chandra and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tarveen Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Sanjay @ Sanjay Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Mohd Nafees Vs State of U.P. and Another