Allowed

Vineet Kumar Thru. His Father Raju Bhargav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC30 May 2023/89/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the criminal revision and set aside the bail rejection orders. The revisionist, a juvenile accused under the POCSO Act, was directed to be released on bail with a surety amount of Rs. 10,000, under the care and supervision of his father.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; impugned orders set aside; accused released on bail with Rs. 10,000 bond and two sureties, conditionally supervised by father.

Vineet Kumar Thru. His Father Raju Bhargav… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 28 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 89 of 2023 Revisionist :- Vineet Kumar Thru. His Father Raju Bhargav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And 3 Others

¶2

Counsel for Revisionist :- Uday Kumar,Rahul Agnihotri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶4

Counter affidavit filed today by the State is taken on record.

¶5

Vide order dated 1.2.2023, notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 and the office has reported that notice has personally been served.

¶6

Case called out.

¶7

None is present on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

¶8

In the aforesaid circumstance, this Court is proceeding to hear the matter in absence of him.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

¶10

Instant criminal revision has been filed with the prayer to allow the criminal revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 4.1.2023 passed by Special Judge, Children Court/Special Judge, POCSO Act/First Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri vide Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2022 and also set aside the impugned order dated 17.11.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri vide Crime No.350 of 2022 under Section 376 I.P.C. & 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Kheri, District Lakhimpur Kheri and release the appellant on bail in the aforesaid crime number and give him under the care of father as well as natural guardian during the pendency of the case.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant matter. It is further submitted that the incident has taken place on 23.7.2022 but the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on 25.7.2022, i.e., after two days of the incident and no explanation has been given thereof. The revisionist has not committed any offence and he has been named due to enmity. There is no likelihood of the revisionist in coming into association with any known criminal or exposing him to moral, physical or psychological danger in the event he is released on bail. The revisionist is in Child Care Home since 10.10.2022. In

¶12

case the revisionist is enlarged on bail, the guardian of the revisionist undertakes that the revisionist will not again involve himself in committing the offence and the revisionist will always observe good conduct and behaviour.

¶13

It is further submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board and also the appellate court while rejecting the bail application overlooked the true spirit and intent of the Legislature as provided under Section 12 of the Act. It is submitted that in the present case, no such contingency as provided in Section 12 of the Act is present; and no adverse material is available against the revisionist. 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

Resultantly, the criminal revision is hereby allowed.

¶17

The impugned order dated 4.1.2023 passed by Special Judge, Children Court/Special Judge, POCSO Act/First Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri vide Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2022 and also set aside the impugned order dated 17.11.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri vide Crime No.350 of 2022 under Section 376 I.P.C. & 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Kheri, District Lakhimpur Kheri, are hereby set aside.

¶18

It is directed that the revisionist be released on bail in aforementioned Case Crime No. 350 of 2022 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 the father 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. Both the sureties are directed to be close relatives of the revisionist juvenile.

¶19

Order Date :- 30.5.2023 Ram Murti

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vineet Kumar Thru. His Father Raju Bhargav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineet Kumar Thru. His Father Raju Bhargav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Sitaram Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Jaswant @ Shiva Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Juvenile Mr. X Thru. His Mother Smt. Ram Lali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Prateek Mishra Thru. His Father Narendra Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Sultanpur and Another