Allowed

Raja @ Rajat Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Apr 2018CRLR/1763/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the juvenile revisionist. The court quashed the impugned orders rejecting bail orders passed by courts below. The court held that no evidence existed to show the juvenile would face danger or harm upon release and preferred his bail application.

What did the court decide?

Rev. allowed, impugned orders set aside; Revisionist enlargable on bail with personal bond by parents/guardians and two sureties.

Raja @ Rajat Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1763 of 2016

¶3

Revisionist :- Raja @ Rajat Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Santosh Tripathi,Atul Kumar,Mandvi Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lokesh Kr.Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.05.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Muzaffar Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 25/2016 ( Raja @ Rajat Kumar Vs. State of U.P.), dismissing the appeal against order dated 11.03.2016 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Muzafar Nagar. Vide order dated 11.03.2016, bail application of revisionist has rejected in Case Crime No. 840/2014, under Sections 364, 302, 201 and 120B I.P.C., Police Station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar.

¶7

As per prosecution version, Abhishek son of informant, was missing from 19.09.2014, later on he was murdered.

¶8

Learned counsel for revisionist contended that there exists no ground as specified in Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 for rejection of bail application of revisionist. Revisionist is in Protection and Care of Juvenile Home from 05.11.2014. Relying on the judgment dated 18.12.2015 passed by Delhi High Court in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Raju through Juvenile Justice Board and others in W.P. (C) 11511/2015 & C.M. No. 30441/2015 against which Special Leave to Appeal No. 2204422045/2015 (Swati Maliwal Jaihind Vs. Raju through Juvenile Justice Board & others) , was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, he further contended that juvenile cannot be placed in Protection and Care of Juvenile Home for more than three years. There is no criminal antecedent of revisionist. Revisionist has been made accused only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused. Later on Case Crime No. 283/2016 under Sections 332, 353, 224, 393 I.P.C. was lodged for absconding from the court. In that case, revisionist has been released on bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. contended that on the pointing of revisionist dead- body of deceased was recovered. There is sufficient evidence against revisionist. Considering the gravity of offence, revisionist should not be released on bail.

¶10

From the perusal of impugned order, it reveals that there is nothing adverse against revisionist in report of District Probation Officer, Muzaffar Nagar. There is no evidence or material on record to show that the release of 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.

¶11

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that applicant deserves to be released on bail.

¶12

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

¶13

The revisionist Raja @ Rajat Kumar (Juvenile) be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 840/2014, under Sections 364, 302, 201 and 120B I.P.C., Police Station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar on furnishing a personal bond by either of his parents and in absence by his legal guardians and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board.

¶14

Order Date :- 30.4.2018 Sharad/-

Raja @ Rajat Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja @ Rajat 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

Rajendra Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Awtar Singh Chug and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Tiwari and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Daya Ram and Others Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Zahid @ Sahil Vs State of U.P. and Another

Fatma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others