Allowed

Sadakat v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2020CRLR/3635/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision against the rejection of bail for a juvenile petitioner. The court held that the seriousness of the alleged offence is not a ground to refuse bail under the Juvenile Justice Act. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and bail was granted for the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside and juvenile revisionist released on bail in custody of parents upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3635 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Sadakat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ambuj Pandey,Avanish Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Record reveals that bail of juvenile-revisionist involved in Case Crime No. 818 of 2018, under Sections 147, 302 and 148 I.P.C., Police Station Jhijhana, District Shamli has been rejected by Juvenile Justice Board, Shamli, vide judgement and order dated 24.05.2019.

¶7

Appeal there-against has also been dismissed vide judgement and order dated 30.8.2019 passed by Sessions Judge, Shamli in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2019. Both the orders of Courts below are impugned in the present criminal revision.

¶8

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 mala fide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has been declared juvenile by Board and order of Board has become final. Co-accused, who are major, have been granted bail by this Court.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for State opposed the prayer for bail and supported the judgements of Courts below.

¶10

As per prosecution story, juvenile-revisionist is alleged to have active participation in the commission of murder of one Rajendra with five co-accused on 26.11.2018 at about 4:00 pm.

¶11

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 is as follows :-

¶12

"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

¶13

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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(3) When such person is not released on bail under subsection(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."

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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. The impugned orders are hereby set aside.

¶19

Let juvenile-revisionist-Sadakat involved in Case Crime No. 818 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148 and 302 IPC, Police Station Jhinjhana, District Shamli 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

¶20

and shall produce him when and wherever, as directed, before Juvenile Justice Board or any other Court.

¶21

Order Date :- 8.1.2020 Akram

Sadakat v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadakat v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badle Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jay Prakash Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yakoob Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lallan Babu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajvir Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Vikas Pandey (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another