Allowed

Ajay Sharma (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC2 Jun 2021CRLR/549/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court allowed the plea of the juvenile revisionist, Ajay Sharma, seeking bail. The court observed that there was no material to show that his release would endanger him or defeat justice, and held that ongoing detention was untenable under special juvenile provisions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgments and orders were set aside and the revisionist, Ajay Sharma, was enlarged on bail subject to a personal bond and sureties.

Ajay Sharma (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 549 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Ajay Sharma (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Dheeraj Singh (Bohra) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Kakkar

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Dheeraj Singh (Bohra), learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the informant through video conferencing and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 04.12.2018 passed by Session Judge, Baghpat in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2018 (Ajay Sharma vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as order dated 25.07.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Baghpat in Case Crime No.426 of 2017, under Sections 302, 307, 504, 506/34 IPC and 7/8 of Criminal Law Amendment Act at Police Station Doghat, District Baghpat.

¶7

As per prosecution version, on 19.10.2017, the family members of the first informant performed Dipawali prayer in the village and after taking meal, all the family members had to sleep. At about 10.00 pm in the night, the neighbouring accused armed with spear and country made pistol, came and assaulted upon Satpal, Sunder, Suresh and Bhullan @ Satendra due to enmity regarding possession of land. In the alleged incident, two persons, namely, Satpal and Sunder succumbed to their injuries.

¶8

It is contended that revisionist has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that bail application of the Juvenile has been rejected primarily taking into account the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed. It is further argued that once the person has been declared Juvenile, his bail cannot be rejected on account of gravity of offence committed, if there is no other reason as required for not granting bail.

¶9

It is next argued on behalf of revisionist that there exists no ground as specified in Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 for rejection of bail application. The orders passed by the appellate court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board do not disclose any reason for concluding that release of revisionist would bring him in association with bad elements of society and his release would expose him morally,

¶10

physically and psychologically. It is further submitted that the report of the District Probation Officer discloses that the revisionist has no criminal tendency nor has any criminal history on record and the said fact has not been considered by the Juvenile Justice Board. The revisionist is in jail since 30.10.2017and more than 3 1/2 years have completed in jail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. did not raise any dispute with regard to the aforesaid facts.

¶12

Admittedly, the revisionist was a juvenile at the time of incident and special provisions are there for the bail of a juvenile. It is evident that there is no satisfactory material on record to conclude that the release of juvenile would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that it would defeat the ends of justice or would bring him into association of known criminals. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that applicant deserves to be released on bail to his parents or legal guardians in absence thereof.

¶13

Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed . The impugned judgements & orders passed by the courts below are hereby set aside.

¶14

Let revisionist- Ajay Sharma (Minor) be enlarged on bail in above mentioned case crime on furnishing a personal bond by either of his parents and in absence by his legal guardians and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned and subject to conditions fixed by the court below.

¶15

Order Date :- 2.6.2021 Ajeet

Ajay Sharma (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Sharma (Minor) 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulfam Vs State of U.P.

Bharat Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Dileep Vs State of U.P.

Inamul Vs State of U.P.

Veer Pal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of U.P.