Allowed

Master X Thru. Its His Father Sri Raghav Ram Mishr v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2023CRLR/412/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application of an accused juvenile, setting aside impugned orders from the Juvenile Justice Board and Additional Sessions Judge, releasing him on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders rejected by JJB and AD&J Sultanpur were set aside. Revisionist (Aman Mishra) released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties.

Master X Thru. Its His Father Sri Raghav Ram Mishr Vs… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:45333

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 412 of 2023

¶4

Revisionist :- Master X Thru. Its His Father Sri Raghav Ram Mishr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

¶8

This Criminal Revision has been filed against the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur in Case Crime No.176 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Munshiganj, District Amethi as well as order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is a juvenile and he is having no criminal history. He further submitted that during pendency of this revision the coaccused namely Prateek Mishra has been released on bail by this Court, vide order dated 30.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.404 of 2023. In these circumstances, the revisionist is also entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the above contentions but conceded that the revisionist is not having any criminal history and namely Prateek Mishra has been released on bail by this Court.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, which reveals

¶12

that the above aspects of the matter except to grant of bail to the co-accused has not been properly considered by the court below.

¶13

The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that it is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. It has been submitted that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, prayer for bail of a juvenile can be rejected 'if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to 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'.

¶14

This Court has to see whether the opinion of the appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned orders are in consonance with the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015. Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile, which are as follows:

¶15

(1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or

¶16

(2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or

¶17

(3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice?

¶18

Admittedly, gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail under Section 12 of the Act.

¶19

It has further been submitted that gravity of the offence could not be relevant for refusing grant of bail to the juvenile, as has been held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P., 2010 (68) ACC 616 and it has been a consistent view of

¶20

various courts. It has also been submitted that there exists no material to justify rejection of bail on the grounds envisaged by Section 12 of the Act.

¶21

In view of the above, this revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.12.2022 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur in Case Crime No.176 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Munshiganj, District Amethi as well as order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023 are hereby set aside.

¶22

Let revisionist Aman Mishra , be released on bail in Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.176 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Munshiganj, District Amethi , on furnishing of a personal bond alongwith an undertaking on behalf of revisionist by his legal guardian/father to the effect that he will not permit the revisionist to come in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice and provide no occasion to the revisionist whereby his release on bail would defeat the ends of justice, by his legal guardian/father and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to following conditions :-

¶23

(1) Revisionist will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail.

¶24

(2) Revisionist will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court.

¶25

(3) Revisionist shall remain present, in person, before the Board on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case; (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Board that absence of the revisionist is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Board to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶26

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and Board will be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶27

Order Date :- 12.7.2023

¶28

Amit/-

¶29

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Master X Thru. Its His Father Sri Raghav Ram Mishr v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Master X Thru. Its His Father Sri Raghav Ram Mishr v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Naeem Khan @ Naeem and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Ramsewak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Kashmir Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Others

Babita Tripathi Alias Babita Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko

Nusrat @ Nusrat Jahan and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Others

Shiv Vrat Raghuvanshi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and Another