Allowed

Amitabh Gautam v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2022CRLA/1057/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal allowing release of a juvenile on bail, setting aside the High Court order rejecting it. The court held that bail is the rule under the Juvenile Justice Act when no adverse material exists, relying on the District Probation Officer's report.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail via bond of Rs.10,000/- with two close relative sureties, subject to conditions of education and conduct.

Amitabh Gautam Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 89 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1057 of 2022

¶2

Appellant :- Amitabh Gautam Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Kartikeya Bhargava,Swapnil Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶4

1. The criminal appeal has been filed under Section 101(5) of of Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to set aside order dated 6.1.2022 and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.299 of 2020 under sections 302/34 I.P.C., P.S. Sadabad, district Hathras.

¶5

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. None appears on behalf of the respondent No.2, although notice has been served.

¶6

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been declared as juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board. Juvenality of the appellant has not been challenged. A first information report for the murder of the deceased Gopal was lodged without naming any accused person. From the extra judicial confession of Shivam Sharma, name of the appellant has cropped in. Even, Shivam Sharma has not assigned any overact to the appellant. His role has been assigned that of guarding the house whereas the other accused persons have been given active role of throttling and catching old.

¶7

It is further submitted that the District Probation

¶8

Officer has given his report in favour of the appellant. He has found other parameters such as physical, emotional, mental, socio economic etc normal and has opined that the juvenile needs to be given adequate consultation. The maternal uncle Raju Gaur has undertaken to take care of the juvenile if he is given in his custody.

¶9

It is further submitted that the co-accused persons who have been assigned active role in the murder of deceased have been enlarged on bail. The bail orders are on record to the appeal.

¶10

Learned court below while rejecting the bail application 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.

¶11

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 not pointed out any adverse material against the appellant.

¶12

It is next submitted on behalf of the appellant 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.

¶13

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) through his father Swami Nath versus State of

¶14

U.P. and another.

¶15

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.

¶16

5. There is no material on record to indicate that in case the appellant 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.

¶17

6. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the criminal appeal is liable to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 6.1.2022(supra) is set aside.

¶18

The appellant Amitabh Gautam 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 court/Juvenile Justice Board subject to the condition that parent/guardian 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. Both the sureties are directed to be close relative/maternal uncle of the appellant juvenile.

¶19

Order Date :- 16.7.2022/kkb.

¶20

Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL Date: 2022.07.16 16:38:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amitabh Gautam v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amitabh Gautam 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Km. Reema Vs State of U.P. through its Secretary (Home) Govt. of U.P. and 4 others

Indrajeet Singh Vs State of U.P Thru Secretary Home Lknw. and Another

Rituraj Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sonu @ Suresh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manni Singh @ Aishwarya Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anupam Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. and Another