Allowed

Abhishek Singh @ Chetan Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2021CRLR/967/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision, holding that impugned orders rejecting bail and dismissing a criminal appeal by Juvenile Justice Board and Sessions Court were set aside for failing to record reasons as mandated for minors under the Juvenile Justice Act 2015.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to revisionist Abhishek Singh @ Chetan Singh; impugned judgment and order dated 2.1.2021 and 11.1.2021 set aside.

Abhishek Singh @ Chetan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 967 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Abhishek Singh @ Chetan Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- P.K. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Despite service of notice, no one is present for the opposite party no.2.

¶6

Heard Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 2.1.2021 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat whereby the bail application of the revisionist in Case Crime No.280 of 2020, under Sections 395, 412, 504 IPC, Police Station Sajeti, District Kanpur Nagar was rejected as well as the judgment and order dated 11.1.2021 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.13/Special Judge (POCSO Act), whereby the Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2021 filed against the same has also been dismissed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Revisionist was not named in the F.I.R. and false recovery of Rs.1600/- has been shown by the police. There is no eye-witness of the alleged recovery. Co-accused Adarsh Yadav, Gaurav Agnihotri, Rahul @ Saurabh Jaiswal and Shatrughan have been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.1.2021, 15.12.2020, 6.1.2021 & 21.1.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.48272 of 2020, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.46270 of 2020, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.47576 of 2020 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3043 of 2021. Copy of bail orders have been produced before the Court, which is taken on record. He argues that admittedly, the revisionist is a juvenile and while deciding the bail application, the Juvenile Justice Board has solely considered the gravity of the offence alleged and had not even considered the requirement of the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and

¶9

Protection) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act'). He argues that the Appellate Court had committed the same error in dismissing the appeal.

¶10

I have perused the orders rejecting the bail application and the appeal, who do not record any reasons as required in terms of the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Act.

¶11

Considering the age of the revisionist who is minor and in custody since 10.10.2020, the revision deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned judgment and orders dated 2.1.2021 and 11.1.2021 are set aside. The bail application of the revisionist is also allowed.

¶12

Let revisionist Abhishek Singh @ Chetan Singh 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.

¶13

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

¶14

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.

¶15

The concerned Court shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.

¶16

Order Date :- 9.8.2021 S. Singh

Abhishek Singh @ Chetan Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Singh @ Chetan Singh 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

Chandra Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rishipal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brijbhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Vs State of U.P. and Another