Allowed

Vivek @ Chhotu (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2021CRLR/93/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Revision allowed, setting aside orders rejecting bail for a juvenile accused under POCSO and IPC. The court held rejection was unjustified as no specific grounds existed under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act showing risk of association with criminals or danger to the juvenile.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; revisionist released on bail with guardian and sureties; to report to Juvenile Justice Board.

Vivek @ Chhotu (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 93 of 2020

¶3

Revisionist :- Vivek @ Chhotu (Minor) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Shive Datta Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

This revision is has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 7.12.2019 passed by VIIIth Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012) Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2019 and order dated 26.9.2019 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat in Case Crime No. 105 of 2019 under Section 363, 366, 376D, 354 I.P.C. a& Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Chaubepur, District- Kanpur Nagar, whereby the application for bail of the revisionist, Vivek @ Chhotu was rejected.

¶6

The revisionist is an accused in the aforesaid criminal case and he was declared juvenile by the Board on 19.9.2019 in conflict with law. The application for bail moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected by the Board vide order dated 26.09.2019 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 VIIIth Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO ACt, Kanpur Dehat which was rejected vide order dated 7.12.2019, 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 revisionist was neither named in the F.I.R. nor his name came into light in the statement of victim Km. Hina recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. and his name disclosed in the confessional statement of co-accused Raju recorded by the police. 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 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

¶11

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. The gravity of the offence is not a relevant consideration for grant of bail to a juvenile, as held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P., 2010 (1) JIC 771 (LB).

¶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 set-aside.

¶15

Revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 7.12.2019 passed by VIIIth Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012) Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2019 and order dated 26.9.2019 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat in Case Crime No. 105 of 2019 under Section 363, 366, 376D, 354 I.P.C. a& Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Chaubepur, DistrictKanpur Nagar are set aside.

¶16

Let the revisionist- Vivek @ Chhotu involved in Case Crime No.105 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366, 376-D, 354 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 POCSO Acty, P.S.- Chaubepur, District-Kanpur Nagar be released on bail, executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- by the guardian (sister) of the applicant, with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat on the condition that he will keep the revisionist in her proper care and custody and will constantly contact his school management, if he continues with the studies and will report to the Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat once in a two months regarding the progress made by the revisionist.

¶17

Order Date :- 6.8.2021 Fhd.

Vivek @ Chhotu (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek @ Chhotu (Minor) 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

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Atul Kumar Singh @ Atul Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Ashraf Vs State of U.P.

Dr. Ritu Garg Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Up and Another

Mehboob @ Ayub @ Kalia Vs State of U.P. and Another