Allowed

Ankul Kumar (Minor)through His Father Asharam v. state of u.p.thu prin.sec.home civil sec.lko and others

Allahabad HC25 Feb 2022/20/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal revision by a juvenile accused involving rape, setting aside an order denying bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The revisionist was a minor at the time of the incident, with no corroborative medical evidence against him and a positive opinion from the District Probation Officer.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 19.7.2021 set aside; revisionist directed to be released on bail with sureties on the governor of Rs.10,000/-.

Ankul Kumar (Minor)through His Father Asharam Vs state of… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 20 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Ankul Kumar (Minor)Through His Father Asharam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.Thu Prin.Sec.Home Civil Sec.Lko And Others

¶4

Counsel for Revisionist :- Smriti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shitesh Jha

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. The revision petition has been filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to set aside order dated 19.7.2021 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.11, Lakhimpur Kheri in Crl. Appeal No.13/2021, Case crime No.58 of 2021 under section 376 I.P.C. and 5(m)/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Mohammadi, district Kheri

¶7

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

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist was juvenile at the time of incident, being his age as 14 years, 10 months and 20 days. There is no corroborative medical report in support of the prosecution story. P.W.1 and P.W2 who are mother and father of the victim have turned hostile. The District Probation Officer in his report has clearly stated that the revisionist has no previous criminal history. One day, the mother of the victim and mother of the juvenile had quarreled due to trivial issue and on the same day, the revisionist was arrested. No one has seen the incident. The statement of the victim does not inspire confidence. The revisionist is in jail since 19.2.2021.

¶9

It is further submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board and also the appellate court while rejecting the bail application(s) overlooked the opinion of the District Probation Officer as also the true spirit and intent of the Legislature as provided under Section 12 of the Act.

¶10

It is submitted that in the present case, no such contingency as provided in Section 12 of the Act is present; rather contrary to it, the District Probation Officer has opined that after giving psychological treatment and proper education, the revisionist can be made independent and no adverse material is available against the revisionist.

¶11

It is next submitted on behalf of the revisionist that bail to a child in reference to Section 12 of the Act in conflict with law is a rule and denial is an exception.

¶12

In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on a judgment and order dated 11.1.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No.332 of 2019 Kuldeep Vishwakarma (Minor) through his father Swami Nath versus State of U.P. and another.

¶13

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate does not dispute the legal proposition and submits that the court may pass appropriate order in the best interest of the child.

¶14

5. There is no material on record to indicate that in case the revisionist is released, it would bring

¶15

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.

¶16

6. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the criminal revision is liable to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 19.7.2021(supra) is set aside.

¶17

The revisionist is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of concerned Juvenile Justice Board subject to the condition that parent/guardian of the revisionist will take care of his education and betterment and will not allow to indulge him in any criminal activity and will keep constant check on his activities, as also in case there is no legal impediment. Both the sureties are directed to be close relatives of the revisionist juvenile.

¶18

Order Date :- 25.2.2022 kkb/

¶19

Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL Date: 2022.03.02 09:08:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ankul Kumar (Minor)through His Father Asharam v. state of u.p.thu prin.sec.home civil sec.lko and others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankul Kumar (Minor)through His Father Asharam v. state of u.p.thu prin.sec.home civil sec.lko and others

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

Sushil Kumar Gupta Alias Susil Vs State of U.P. Thro. Addi. Chief Secy. Dep. Home, Civil Sect. Lko and Anothers

Girish Chandra Srivastava Vs District and Session Judge Faizabad and Another

Jagnarain Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. D.I.G./ S.P. Lucknow

Vipin Kumar @ Ankush Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and Another

Rameshwar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and Another

Jagdish Maurya and Other Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Depart. of Home and Others