Dismissed

Harsh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2020CRLA/1707/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant challenged the rejection of their bail application under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. Relying on the precedent in Radhika, this court held that the specific procedure for juveniles in the Juvenile Justice Act supersedes the general Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently, the criminal appeal was declared non-maintainable and disposed of, directing the appellant to approach the prope

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed as not maintainable; no bail relief was granted.

Harsh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1707 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Harsh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Pachauri Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This is an appeal under Section 101(5) of Juvenile Justice Act challeging the order dated 04.02.2020 passed by Special Judge (POCSO) Act/Juvenile Court, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.09, Mathura. The appellant has declared juvenile on the date of incident. He has filed bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the learned Sessions Judge, and by the impugned order, the bail application was rejected by the court concerned vide aforementioned order impugned.

¶7

The Act of 2015 is comprehensive one to deal all aspect of the juvenile/minors including their bail and trial. When the specific procedure is prescribed then the general procedure would occupy back seat.

¶8

Learned AGA has drawn the attention of the Court to the judgement of this Court in the case of Radhika(Juvenile) and others Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2019 (3) Crimes(HC) 311 , whereby, it has been pointed out that for the juvenile the procedure prescribed in Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act 2015 itself. Thus under the circumstances the present criminal appeal is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.

¶9

If so advised the appellant may approach to the proper forum as per the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case of Radhika (supra) and the competent court are expected that they would adhere to the observation made in the aforesaid judgement and decide the same without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶10

With this observation the present criminal appeal stands disposed of.

¶11

The lower court record of the case shall be returned back to the concerned court within next fortnight.

¶12

Order Date :- 24.11.2020 Abhishek Sri.

Harsh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harsh 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

Imrat Vs State of U.P.

Smt Vidya Devi Vs State of U.P.

Subhawati Devi Vs State of U.P.

Ikram Vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Smt Ramayan Shri and Another Vs State of Up