Allowed

Aakash Thru. Father Harivansh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2022/735/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge civil revision Writ Petition to quash bail orders of Juvenile Justice Board and Additional Session Judge dismissing bail application of juvenile accused under IPC 304. Court allowed revision allowing bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and orders dated 10.9.2021 and 6.10.2021 are set aside. Revisionist directed to be released on bail with bond and conditions.

Aakash Thru. Father Harivansh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 735 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Aakash Thru. Father Harivansh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajneesh Kumar Verma,Surya Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

The present criminal revision has been filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to quash the judgment and order dated 10.9.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur in Case Crime No.410 of 2020 under Section 304 Indian Penal Code Police Station Kurebhar, District Sultanpur and the judgement and order dated 6.10.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2021 passed by Additional Session Judge POCSO Court No.12 Sultanpur.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board has determined the juvenilty of the revisionist. His date of birth is 8.2.2005. On the date of incident the revisionist was 15 years 9 months and 4 days old. It is contended that no one has seen the incident. The revisionist has no criminal history. The revisionist is in jail since 13.12.2020. The District Probation Officer in his report has not made any adverse remark and submit the report in his favour. The physical condition has been found normal. No social or economic adversity has been found and the mental state has been found better than normal. The District Probation Officer has opined that it appears to be necessary to connect the accused juvenile from the main stream of the society.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the present criminal revision. It is submitted, the incident reported is true and it is wrong to say that the allegations made against the applicant are false and motivated. Also, reliance has been placed on the

¶8

findings recorded in the bail rejection orders to submit that the instant revision may be dismissed.

¶9

It is not in dispute that the applicant is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. Under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the prayer for bail of a juvenile may be rejected 'if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile 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'.

¶10

The court has to see whether the opinion of the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and orders are in consonance with the provision of the Act. Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail may be refused to a juvenile offender. These are:-

¶11

"(i) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or

¶12

(ii) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or

¶13

(iii) that his release would defeat the ends of justice?"

¶14

It is submitted that in the present case, no such contingency as provided in the 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on a judgement 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 vs. State of U.P. and another.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the criminal revision is liable to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 10.9.2020 (supra) and order dated 6.10.2021 (supra) are set aside.

¶20

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 Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur subject to the condition that parent 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.

¶21

Order Date :- 3.3.2022 Madhu

¶22

Digitally signed by MADHU KUMARI Date: 2022.03.07 18:07:01 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Aakash Thru. Father Harivansh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aakash Thru. Father Harivansh 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

Ruchir Singh Sisodia and Anr. Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Rajesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajaya Bharti Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakeel Ahmad Khan (in Person) Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and Anr.

Jagannath Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Pintu Pal @ Dharmendra Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Department of Home and Another