SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Fulendar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 January, 2020

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 80

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 2696 of 2018

Revisionist :- Fulendar

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- Satish Chand,Ali Hasan,Istiyaq Ali

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Yadav

Hon’ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

Heard Sri Ali Hasan, learned Counsel for revisionist, learned AGA for State, Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the material available on record.

Record reveals that bail of juvenile-revisionist involved in Case Crime No. 60 of 2017, under Section 377 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Chopan, District Sonbhadra has been rejected by Juvenile Justice Board, Sonbhadra vide judgement and order dated 08.08.2017.

Appeal there-against has also been dismissed vide judgement and order dated 25.05.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Sonbhadra in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2017. Both the orders of Courts below are impugned in the present criminal revision.

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case. No offence against the revisionist is made out and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. The juvenile-revisionist is in custody since 10.03.2017. He has been declared juvenile by Board and order of Board has become final.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for State as well as learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for bail and supported the judgements of Courts below.

As per prosecution story, juvenile-revisionist is alleged to have taken away four years boy of opposite party no.2 and done unnatural offence.

Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 provides the provisions as to when bail to a juvenile can be refused.

“12 Bail of Juvenile.–(1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person but he shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release 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.

(2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board.

(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section(1) by the Board, it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order.”

In view of the aforesaid provision, the bail application of the juvenile can be rejected only on the existence of the aforementioned grounds enumerated in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

Apart from it, in the case of Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. [2010 (71) ACC 209 (Alld)] and Naurang (minor) Vs. State of U.P. [2010 (71) ACC 255 (Alld), this Court has observed that seriousness of offence is no ground to reject the bail to a juvenile.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and rival contention of learned counsel for the parties as well as perusal of records available on file, report of Probation Officer, there is no ground so as to justify the rejection of bail of juvenile under Section 12 of the said Act, therefore, the revision deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders are hereby set aside.

Let juvenile-revisionist-Fulendar involved in Case Crime No. 60 of 2017, under Section 377 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Chopan, District Sonbhadra be released on bail in the custody of any of the parents on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties before the Juvenile Justice Board concerned to its satisfaction and to file an undertaking that he will look after the juvenile-revisionist carefully and will not let him involve in any criminal case or associate with known or known criminals and shall produce him when and wherever, as directed, before Juvenile Justice Board or any other Court.

Order Date :- 8.1.2020

I.A.Siddiqui

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation