Allowed

Shubham Singh Thru. Father Ram Shankar Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC8 Mar 2022/453/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision filed by a minor revisionist to set aside orders rejecting bail. Relying on the District Probation Officer's report and positive character witnesses, the court directed release on bail subject to family control.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties, subject to father's undertaking for education and control.

Shubham Singh Thru. Father Ram Shankar… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 453 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Shubham Singh Thru. Father Ram Shankar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Deomani Tripathi,Pranav Trivedi,Raj Kumar Singh

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pushpendra Sahay Saxena,Vikas Chaturvedi

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. The revision petition has been filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to set aside order dated 15.7.2021 passed by Upper District Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Pratapgarh in Crl. Appeal No.28 of 2021 Shubham Singh versus State of U.P. and another and the order dated 25.5.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Case Crime No.44 of 2021 under sections 302, 201, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Mandhata, district Pratapgarh.

¶7

2. Heard Mr. Ravi Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. None appears for the respondent No.2 although notice has been served on respondent No.2 and name of the counsel is also shown in the cause list.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the name of the revisionist has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Sujit Prajapati. He is not named in the first information report. No one has seen the incident. There is no other evidence against the revisionist. His age has been determined by the Juvenile Justice Board as

¶9

16 years. The revisionist has no criminal history.

¶10

The D.P.O. has not given any adverse report against the revisionist. Only recommendation has been given that he(revisionist) is to be kept in strict family control. It is submitted that father of the revisionist undertakes that he will keep the revisionist under control as per DPO report. The revisionist is in jail since 8.2.2021.

¶11

It is further submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board and also the appellate court while rejecting the bail application(s) overlooked the opinion of the district Probation Officer as also the true spirit and intent of the Legislature as provided under Section 12 of the Act.

¶12

It is submitted that in the present case, no such contingency as provided in Section 12 of the Act is present; rather contrary to it, the District Probation Officer has opined that after giving psychological treatment and proper education, the revisionist can be made independent and no adverse material is available against the revisionist.

¶13

It is next submitted on behalf of the revisionist that bail to a child in reference to Section 12 of the Act in conflict with law is a rule and denial is an exception.

¶14

In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on a judgment and order dated 11.1.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No.332 of 2019 Kuldeep Vishwakarma (Minor)

¶15

through his father Swami Nath versus State of U.P. and another.

¶16

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate does not dispute the legal proposition and submits that the court may pass appropriate order in the best interest of the child.

¶17

5. There is no material on record to indicate that in case the revisionist is released, it would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶18

6. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the criminal revision is liable to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 15.7.2021(supra) and order dated 25.5.2021 (supra) are set aside.

¶19

The revisionist is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of concerned Juvenile Justice Board subject to the condition that father of the revisionist will take care of his education and betterment and will not allow to indulge him in any criminal activity and will keep constant check on his activities in view of the D.P.O. report. Both the sureties are directed to be close relatives of the revisionist juvenile.

¶20

Order Date :- 8.3.2022 kkb/

¶21

Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL Date: 2022.03.10 10:15:37 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shubham Singh Thru. Father Ram Shankar Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Singh Thru. Father Ram Shankar Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow

Umesh Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy Home Deptt and Another

Amit Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Raghunandan Thru. His Father Ram Nath Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Ranveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sangeeta Devi and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Civil. Sectt. and Another