Allowed

Ajay Gupta v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jun 2021CRLR/129/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the Hon'ble Court allowed the petition challenging the rejection of bail for a juvenile accused in a murder case. The Court held that the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court erred in not applying the mandate of Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. The impugned orders were set aside, and the revisionist's bail was granted.

What did the court decide?

The revision is allowed; impugned orders dated 18.11.2020 and 23.12.2020 are set aside; revisionist released on bail with personal bond and two local sureties.

Ajay Gupta Vs State of Up and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 129 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Ajay Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ankit Kapoor Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

Heard counsel for the parties, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

The present revision has been filed challenging the order dated 18.11.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi in Case Crime No. 398 of 2020 (Ajay Gupta Vs. State of U.P.), under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Cholapur, District Varanasi whereby the application filed for grant of bail by the revisionist has been rejected as well as the order dated 23.12.2020 passed by the appellate Court whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 18.11.2020 has been dismissed.

¶7

Counsel for the revisionist argues that the an FIR under Section 302 IPC was filed without naming any person and subsequently, the applicant revisionist, who was juvenile, has been detained on the ground of confessional statement as well as alleged recovery of the weapon used for the offence in question. He further argues that the Juvenile Justice Board has not considered the mandate of the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short "the Act") while

¶8

rejecting the bail application and similarly, the appellate Court has also not considered the mandate to Section 12 (1) of the said Act while disposing off the appeal.

¶9

A perusal of both the orders shows that the Juvenile Justice Board did not take into consideration the existence of any grounds as enumerated in the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Act and the appellate Court while rejecting the bail application has gone into the merits of the case against the applicant and despite noting the mandate of this Court in Santosh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2019 (3) JIC 696 has rejected the appeal.

¶10

On perusal of both the orders, it is clear that that there is nothing on record so as to deny the bail in terms of the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Act, as such, both impugned orders deserved to be set aside. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the order dated 18.11.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi as well as order dated 23.12.2020 passed by the Appellate Court are set aside.

¶11

Let the revisionist Ajay Gupta involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board.

¶12

Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be accepted as a true copy of this order.

¶13

Order Date :- 7.6.2021

¶14

vinay

Ajay Gupta v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Gupta v. State of Up 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Goli and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahisuddin @ Rais Mansuri Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jaalo @ Gaurav Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramsa Tausif (Minor) and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ambrish Srivastava @ Chhotoo Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Mohammad Akmal Vs State of U.P. and Another