Allowed

Satyam (Juvenile Delinquents) v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC16 Jun 2021CRLR/795/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 795 of 2021, the High Court allowed the bail of a juvenile revisionist. The court held that impugned orders rejecting bail failed to record conditions mandated by the Juvenile Justice Act and set aside orders dated 9.12.2020, 7.1.2021, and 28.1.2021.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 9.12.2020, 7.1.2021 and 28.1.2021 set aside; revisionist released on bail with personal bond and two sureties.

Satyam (Juvenile Delinquents) Vs State of Up and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 795 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Satyam (Juvenile Delinquents) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

Despite notice no one appears on behalf of opposite party No.2.

¶8

This present revision has been filed against the order dated 9.12.2020 whereby bail application was rejected by Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate orders dated 7.1.2021 and 28.1.2021.

¶9

The contention of the counsel for the revisionist is that an FIR in question was lodged on 13.4.2020 alleging that the daughter of the first informant was raped by the appellant on 12.4.2020 at about 2 p.m. The medical of the victim was not done. In the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. the victim deposed against the appellant although there are minor inconsistencies in the said statements. He further argues that admittedly the appellant is a juvenile aged about 14 years as determined vide order dated 18.11.2020.

¶10

The bail application filed by the appellant was rejected by the court vide order dated 9.12.2020 holding that the offence in question was a heinous offence and it cannot be denied that after releasing, there are chances of the appellant repeating the offence. The appellant preferred an appeal against the said order which was also dismissed vide order dated 7.1.2021 on the same ground. As in the said orders, Sections 376 AB IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act were not referred to as such another appeal was filed highlighting that certain sections were not mentioned in the earlier appellate order however the second appeal was also got dismissed on 28.1.2021 on the same ground.

¶11

The contention of the counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is in custody since 15.4.2020 and both the orders impugned in the present revision do not record any condition which is mandatory in terms of the proviso to Section 12(1) of

¶12

the Juvenile Justice Act. He says that there is no dispute with regard to the age of the revisionist.

¶13

Considering the statements made at the bar and the fact that revisionist is in custody since 15.4.2020 and there is material on record so as to form an opinion that any of the conditions as specified in proviso to Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act does not in the orders impugned, the revision deserves to be allowed orders impugned are liable to be set aside and the revisionist is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 9.12.2020, 7.1.2021 and 28.1.2021 are set aside. The revision is allowed.

¶15

Let revisionist Satyam be released on bail in Case Crime No. 27 of 2020, under Sections 376 AB, 452 IPC and 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, P.S. Meerganj, District Jaunpur on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶16

The concerned Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of computerized copy of this order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall act accordingly without waiting for submission of the certified copy of this order.

¶17

Order Date :- 16.6.2021 piyush

Satyam (Juvenile Delinquents) v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyam (Juvenile Delinquents) 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

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bheem Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bablu Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Malkhan Vs State of U.P.

Chandra Pal Vs State of U.P.

Nanhu Shah Vs State of U.P.

Braj Lal Vs State of U.P.