Disposed

Saheb Khan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2022CRLR/5545/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court found the revisionist absent and the matter stale (over 16 years). Holding that a prior order from 2006 released the juvenile on bail, the court deemed no re-examination necessary and disposed of the matter based on the old order.

What did the court decide?

The matter is disposed of in terms of the order dated 04.06.2006. Lower court record is directed to be returned immediately.

Saheb Khan Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5545 of 2006

¶3

Revisionist :- Saheb Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Tariq Maqbool Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

The matter is called out in the revised list. None is present for the revisionist.

¶6

Perusal of the ordersheet reveals that this revision was admitted vide order dated 04.10.2006 thereafter, it was taken up again after a gap of several years on 25.08.2017. The revisionist was directed to be informed by the Office and notice was served upon him personally as per office report dated 08.12.2019, however, none appeared on his behalf since even after service of notice. It seems that the revisionist has lost interest in this case.

¶7

The revisionist-juvenile, at that time, challenged the order dated 30.08.20006 passed by Sessions Judge, by which, the order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 18.07.2006 was affirmed and bail to the juvenile was refused in Case Crime No. 401 of 2005 under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster Act, Police Station Tewaripur, District Gorakhpur.

¶8

None responds for the revisionist, hence, the only respondent the State of U.P. heard and papers on record are perused.

¶9

As per contentions in the revision memo, the bail to the juvenile was declined without any good ground on the basis of presumptions though, there was no probability of him getting involved in any criminal activity or getting exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. It is stated that the provisions of Gangster Act cannot be invoked on the basis of only one FIR, Case Crime No. 295 of 2005 under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 IPC, in which, he was granted bail by the Court.

¶10

It is submitted on behalf of the State that the matter pertains to the year 2005 and the juvenile was ordered to be released in custody of his mother by the order of this Court passed on 04.10.2006. It is stated that there is a fair possibility that matter against him stood decided as at least 16 years have gone since then, therefore, the revisionist has lost interest in prosecuting this revision.

¶11

I went through the impugned orders and also the lower court record. It is very clear from the order passed by this Court on 04.06.2006 that the juvenile was released on bail, under the supervision of his mother, hence, in my view, nothing was left to be done and no purpose shall be served in getting into the legality or propriety of the impugned orders. Hence, the matter is finally decided in terms of order dated 04.06.2006 of this Court.

¶12

The office is directed to return the lower court record immediately. It may also be noted that with the lower court record of Criminal Revision No. 5545 of 2006 (Saheb Khan vs. State), the record of Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2006 (Saheb Khan vs. State) and Special Case under Gangster Act No. 61 of 2005 are also annexed. There is a possibility that trial of the rest of the accused has been held up. Hence, the office is directed to comply with the order of this Court immediately and inform this Court about its compliance.

¶13

Order Date :- 6.12.2022 Vik/-

¶14

Digitally signed by VIKRAM GUPTA Date: 2022.12.07 10:58:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saheb Khan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saheb Khan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

X (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anshu @ Mohd Riyaz Vs State of U.P. and Another

X Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vickky (Minor) Vs State of Up and Another

Juvenile -X Vs State of U.P. and Another

Km. Laxmi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others