Allowed

Raghunandan Thru. His Father Ram Nath v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Allahabad HC8 Mar 2022/747/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the Court allowed the plea against the rejection of bail for a juvenile accused. The Court set aside the impugned orders finding the appellate court's reason for denial unjustified as it contradicted the favorable District Probation Officer report.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 04.10.2021 and 26.08.2021 are set aside and the revisionist is directed to be released on bail.

Raghunandan Thru. His Father Ram Nath Vs State of U.P. and… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 747 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Raghunandan Thru. His Father Ram Nath Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Kumar Awasthi,Priyanka Yadav

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

The present criminal criminal revision under section-102 of the Juvenile Justice (care and protection of children) Act, 2015, is being preferred against the order dated 04.10.2021 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act-II, Faizabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 32/2021, Raghunandan vs. State of U.P., whereby rejecting the criminal appeal of the revisionist, confirming the impugned order dated 26.08.2021, passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad, whereby the bail application moved by the revisionist in Case Crime No. 74/2021 under Section-376, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Kotwali Rudauli, DistrictAyodhya.

¶7

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

¶8

As per the prosecution case, the minor daughter of the informant was enticed away by the revisionist on 26.1.2021 at about 12.30 p.m. and thereafter was forcibly taken near Rambadi school and was raped.

¶9

It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the revisionist is innocent. He has been falsely implicated due to enmity. The revisionist is a student of class XII and studying in Hindu Inter College Rudauli. There is no independent witness of the incident. He has no previous criminal history. The age of the

¶10

prosecutrix has been assessed as 16 years. There is no adverse remark in the report of the District Probation Officer. The relevant parameters have been found to be normal. It has been recommended that for the better development of the Juvenile, physical, moral and psychological support are required.

¶11

It is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile and is entitled to get the benefits of the provisions of the Act. Under Section 12 of the 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'

¶12

Thus, Section 12 of the Act lays down only three contingencies in which the bail can be refused to juvenile. These are:

¶13

(i) If his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or;

¶14

(ii)Expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or;

¶15

(iii)That his release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

On due consideration to the arguments advanced as well as perusal of the record it appears that learned appellate court has rejected the bail application on the ground that keeping in view the future of the juvenile, it would be justified to keep him in the Government Observation Home instead of being released on bail. However, there is no such observation in the D.P.O. report.

¶21

In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the criminal revision is liable to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 4.10.2021 (supra) and order dated 26.8.2021 (supra) are set aside.

¶22

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, Faizabad 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.

¶23

Order Date :- 8.3.2022/Madhu

¶24

Digitally signed by MADHU KUMARI Date: 2022.03.11 11:59:56 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raghunandan Thru. His Father Ram Nath v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghunandan Thru. His Father Ram Nath v. State of U.P. and Ors.

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

Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow

Umesh Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy Home Deptt and Another

Amit Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shubham Singh Thru. Father Ram Shankar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ranveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sangeeta Devi and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Civil. Sectt. and Another