Allowed

Juvenile 'S' v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC25 May 2023/99/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision filed by a juvenile to set aside orders rejecting his bail application. The court found no adverse material or danger to the juvenile and held that bail is the rule under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, ordering his release.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders regarding bail rejection set aside; revisionist directed to be released on bail of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.

Juvenile 'S' Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:37519

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 99 of 2023

¶4

Revisionist :- Juvenile 'S'

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶6

Counsel for Revisionist :- Sandeep Kumar Ojha,Dilip Kumar Verma

¶7

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shailendra Pratap Singh

¶8

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶9

Notice was issued to opposite party no. 2 and as per the report, the same has been served.

¶10

Case called out. None is present on behalf of opposite party no. 2, thus the Court is proceeding in the aforesaid circumstances.

¶11

Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶12

Instant criminal revision has been filed with the prayer to allow the criminal revision and quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 19.12.2022 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Pratapgarh passed in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 2022 by which the aforesaid Criminal Appeal has been rejected by him and as well as the order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Bail Application of the revisionist arising out of Case Crime No. 128 of 2022 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 307, 308, 302, 34 of Pratapgarh.

¶13

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant matter. He next added that he was not involved in committing the offence he has been implicated only due to enmity. He next added that there are certain discrepancies in the orders impugned as the DPO report has not been considered by the trial Court in its right perspective. He further submits that the same is not against the revisionist. Further contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the learned trial Court has also not given any finding to the fact that if the revisionist is released, there is reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring the instant revisionist with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶14

Further the revisionist is in jail since 05.04.2022 and if he is not released on bail his academic career shall be ruined. In case the revisionist is enlarged on bail, the guardian of the revisionist undertakes that the revisionist will not again involve himself in committing the offence and the revisionist will always observe good conduct and behaviour.

¶15

It is further submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board and also the appellate court 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. 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 in favour of the juvenile and no adverse material is available against the revisionist. 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.

¶16

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State does not dispute the legal proposition and submits that the court may pass appropriate order in the best interest of the child.

¶17

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

Resultantly, the criminal revision is hereby allowed .

¶19

The impugned Judgment and order dated 19.12.2022 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Pratapgarh passed in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 2022 by which the aforesaid Criminal Appeal has been rejected by him and as well as the order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Bail Application of the revisionist arising out of Case Crime No. 128 of 2022 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 307, 308, 302, 34 of Pratapgarh are hereby set aside.

¶20

It is directed that the the revisionist be released on bail in aforementioned Case Crime No.128 of 2022 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 the brother 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 relatives of

¶21

the revisionist juvenile.

¶22

Order Date :- 25.5.2023 Anurag

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Juvenile 'S' v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile 'S' v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. 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

Rajat Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Akash Kumar @ Aashu Shukla and 5 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others

Sarvjeet Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Anant Ram @ Lalla Thru. Father Pitam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Smrati Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Raksha Ram and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another