Allowed

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 May 2022CRLR/1102/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision filed by a juvenile accused. Holding that gravity of the offence is not a ground to deny bail to a juvenile, the court set aside previous rejections lacking concrete reasons for danger or risk, and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Revisionist Anil Kumar enlarged on bail by personal bond of parents/guardians with two sureties, subject to reporting and guardianship conditions.

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1102 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Jai Singh Parihar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Jai Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

The present criminal revision has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 15.02.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jhansi in Criminal Appeal No.67 of 2021 (Anil Kumar vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 09.12.2021 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Jhansi in Bail Application No.54 of 2021 (State of U.P. vs. Anil Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No.64 of 2021, under Section 305 IPC and Section 3 (2) 5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Garautha, District Jhansi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive. The revisionist was aged about 17 years 9 month and 7 days at the time of incident. He has further submitted that co-accused persons, namely, Gajendra Singh, Tinku Raja @ Devendra Singh Bundela have already been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 13.12.2021 and 11.02.202 passed by this Court passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.785 of 2021 and 3959 of 2021, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure No.6 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. The another co-accused Bante Raja @ Pratipal Singh has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 5.5.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1627 of 2022, copy has been placed on record. He has further submitted that the revisionist was declared as juvenile in conflict of law but even that both the court below were failed to consider the special provision for bail to juvenile; only gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration for refusing grant of bail to juvenile as has been envisaged in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act and it has been consistent view of various courts; the Board or the lower appellate court has not given any reason or material on record which shows that release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral physical or psychological

¶8

danger, that his release would defeat the ends of justice; there is no criminal history of the revisionist and there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial. The revisionist is in jail since 31.07.2021.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that bail application of the Juvenile has been rejected primarily taking into account the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed without there being any substance. He has further submitted that once a person has already been declared Juvenile, his bail cannot be rejected on account of gravity of offence committed, if there is no other reason as required for not granting bail. He has further submitted that there exists no ground as specified in Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act for rejection of bail application. The orders passed by the appellate court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board do not disclose any concrete reason for concluding that release of revisionist would bring him in association with bad elements of society and his release would expose him morally, physically and psychologically.

¶10

On the other hand, Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the bail. It is not a relevant factor while considering to grant bail to the juvenile. It has been so held by this Court in the cases of Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB); Abdullah @ Abdul Hassan Vs. State of U.P. and Others [2015 (90) ACC 204]; Maroof Vs. State of U.P. and Another [2015 (6) ADJ 203]; Criminal Revision No. 112 of 2015 (Suraj @ Ashok Sukla Thru. Father Mahendra Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 2010(71) ACC 209 decided on 02.07.2015.

¶12

It is evident that there is no satisfactory material on record to conclude that the release of juvenile would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that it would defeat the ends of justice or would bring him into association of known criminals. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that revisionist deserves to be released on bail to his parents or legal guardians in absence thereof.

¶13

Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed . The impugned judgments/orders passed by the courts below are hereby set aside.

¶14

Let revisionist- Anil Kumar be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.64 of 2021, under Section 305 IPC and 3 (2) 5 SC/ST Act at

¶15

Police Station Garautha, District Jhansi, on furnishing a personal bond by either of his parents and in absence by his legal guardians two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned and subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(i) That the natural guardian of the revisionist 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 allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the natural guardian will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.

¶17

(ii) The revisionist and his natural guardian will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Wednesday of every calendar month commencing with the first Wednesday of December, 2020 and if during any calendar month the first Wednesday falls on a holiday, then on the next following working day.

¶18

(iii) 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 concerned on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

¶19

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the court below is directed to make every possible endeavour to conclude the trial of the aforesaid case within a period of four months from today without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

¶20

Order Date :- 18.5.2022 Ajeet

¶21

Digitally signed by AJEET KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.05.18 13:31:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar 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

Lokendra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Sonam Malik (Corpus) and Another Vs Satish Kumar and 2 Others

Imran Vs State of U.P.

Dev Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Afsana Bano and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others