Allowed

Kuldeep v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jun 2021CRLR/198/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court allowed the criminal revision challenging the rejection of bail for a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act. Finding that impugned orders failed to record mandatory findings required by the proviso to Section 12(1), the court set aside the bail rejection orders and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 24.6.2020 and 12.11.2020 setting aside bail were quashed; the bail application is allowed with a personal bond and two sureties.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 198 of 2021 Revisionist :- Kuldeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Satish Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Shukla

¶2

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Satish Chandra Tiwari, counsel for the revisionist, Sri Sanjay Kumar Shukla, counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶4

This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 24.6.2020 passed by the Special Judge POCSO Act/Additional Session Judge, Bareilly whereby the bail application of the revisionist in Case Crime No. 67 of 2019, under Sections 404, 34 and 302 IPC, Police Station Sirauli, District Bareilly was rejected and the appellate order dated 12.11.2020 whereby the Criminal Appeal No. 49 (35) of 2020 filed under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the said bail rejection order was also rejected.

¶5

The contention of the counsel for the revisionist is that the FIR in question was lodged by the brother-in-law of the revisionist alleging that the father-in-law and mother-in-law as well as the revisionist-brother-in-law had killed the wife of the informant. Admittedly, the revisionist is a juvenile as declared by virtue of the order dated 12.2.2020.

¶6

The bail application filed by the revisionist was

¶7

rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appeal filed thereof has also been rejected. Counsel for the revisionist argues that in both the impugned orders, there is no finding on record to satisfy the requirement of proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Act.

¶8

Learned AGA has drawn my attention to the report of the Juvenile Justice Board to the effect that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, the entire purpose of the trial would stand frustrated.

¶9

Considering the submissions made at the Bar, it is clear that none of the requirement of proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Act, which is mandatory, has been recorded while denying the bail application of the juvenile. The revisionistjuvenile is said to be in custody since 21.9.2019.

¶10

In view of the fact that there is nothing on record to satisfy the ingredients of proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Act, the revision is allowed and the impugned orders dated 24.6.2020 and 12.11.2020 are set aside. The bail application of the revisionist is also allowed.

¶11

Let the revisionist Kuldeep be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Juvenile Justice Board concerned.

¶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 :- 11.6.2021

¶14

vinay

Kuldeep v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Michael Pani Vs State of Up and Another

Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P.and Another

Uttam Kumar and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harivansh @ Mittho Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Mishra Vs State of Up and Another

Nadeem Vs State of U.P. and Another