Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Vishnu – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. - 875 of 2020
Decided on : 29-03-2022
POCSO Act - Bail Application - Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - [Sections 376(D) IPC, Section 3/4 POCSO Act] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 2015 and the right of a juvenile to be released on bail. It highlighted the importance of considering the merits of the case and the equal protection of laws guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. The court also referred to previous judgments to support the decision to grant bail to the revisionist.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist, a juvenile, was accused of committing rape. The revisionist claimed innocence and argued that he was falsely implicated. The courts below had rejected his bail application, leading to the filing of a criminal revision before the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revisionist, being a juvenile, was entitled to bail. It emphasized the need to consider the merits of the case and the equal protection of laws guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. The court also noted the substantial period of institutional incarceration undergone by the revisionist and the unlikelihood of an early conclusion of the trial.
Issues: The main issues included the rejection of the revisionist's bail application, the false implication of the revisionist, and the application of Section 12 of the Act, 2015 in granting bail to juveniles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 12 of the Act, 2015, and the consideration of the merits of the case. It also relied on previous judgments to support the grant of bail to the revisionist.
Final Decision: The criminal revision was allowed, and the revisionist was granted bail with specific conditions. The court directed the trial to be concluded within a period of four months.
JUDGMENT :
1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.12.2019 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act, Basti dismissing Criminal Appeal No.53 filed under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ‘the Act’) and affirming the order dated 27.09.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Basti refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Case Crime No. 86 of 2019, under Sections 376(D) IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Chhawani, District Basti.
2. Heard Shri Amitabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. The prosecution case, as per the version of the FIR, is that on 13.4.2019 at about 6 p.m. in the evening the revisionist Vishnu along with co-accused Golu @ Deepak had committed rape with the daughter of the informant namely Angel aged about 4 years.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case with ulterior motive. No such incident took place as alleged by the prosecution. The story as narrated in the first information report is false and baseless. The revisionist has not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report. He further submits that neither the statement recorded under Section 161 of the victim do not support the allegation of rape against the revisionist nor the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C supports the allegation of rape against the revisionist. The medical report also does not support the allegation of rape, there has no external or internal injury found on the person of the victim, the doctor has not given any definite opinion of rape committed to the victim.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is juvenile and there is no apprehension of reasoned ground for believing that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring him in association with any known criminals or expose him to mental, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. He further submits that except this the revisionist has no previous criminal history. The father of the revisionist is giving his undertaking that after release of the revisionist on bail, he will keep him under his custody and look after him properly. Further, the revisionist undertakes that he will not tamper the evidence and he will always cooperate the trial proceedings. There was no report regarding any previous antecedents of family or background of the revisionist. There is no chance of revisionist’s re-indulgence to bring him into association with known criminals.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that it is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile as he has already been declared juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board, Basti vide order dated 27/09.2019. The revisionist was a juvenile aged 15 years on the date of occurrence. He is in jail since 14.04.2019 in connection with the present crime and has completed substantial period of the sentence out of the maximum three years institutional incarceration permissible for a juvenile, under Section 18(1)(g) of the Act.
7. It is submitted with much emphasis that co-accused Golu @ Deepak, who is adult and similarly circumstanced as the revisionist, has been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 10.02.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53774 of 2019. It is argued that the revisionist being a minor, cannot be held in institutional incarceration any further once co-accused, similarly circumstanced, has been admitted to bail. Further submission is that the case of the revisionist is not on worse footing than that of the co-accused, therefore on principles of parity also the revisionist be released on bail.
8. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that thereafter the revisionist applied for bail before the Juvenile Just
The central legal point established in the judgment is the right of a juvenile to be released on bail, considering the merits of the case and the equal protection of laws guaranteed under Article 14 ....
Point of law: The rule in Section 12(1) of the Act is in favour of bail always to a juvenile/ child in conflict with law except when the case falls into one or the other categories denial contemplate....
Juvenile disentitled to bail on account of his case falling under each of the three exceptions enumerated in the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 12, for which no reason has been indicated.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 452, 392, 364, 376-D, 506 - POCSO Act, 2015 - Section 5G, 6, 12, 18(1)(g) – Criminal Procedural Code, 1973 - Section 161, 164 – Gang Rape – Kidnapping or abducting ....
The court established that under the Juvenile Justice Act, a juvenile is entitled to bail as a matter of course unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that their release would pose a danger t....
Juveniles are entitled to bail unless there is clear evidence of potential harm or criminal association, regardless of the offense's severity.
Point of Law - It is necessary to point out that identity of the juvenile in the present matter has been disclosed in impugned judgment and order which violates the right to privacy and confidentiali....
Juveniles are entitled to bail unless there is clear evidence of potential harm or criminal association, regardless of the severity of the alleged offense.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
