Allowed

Vishal Tiwari Thru. His Mother Nanhi Devi v. State of U.P. Thru.Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2024/212/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the Allahabad High Court allowed the application and set aside orders rejecting bail. The single judge found no grounds to deny release based on the District Probation Officer's favorable opinion and the lack of material indicating danger to society.

What did the court decide?

The revision was allowed; the orders rejecting bail and dismissing the appeal were set aside; the revisionist was directed to be released on bail subject to conditions.

Vishal Tiwari Thru. His Mother Nanhi Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru.Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31199

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 212 of 2023

¶4

Revisionist :- Vishal Tiwari Thru. His Mother Nanhi Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Lalit Kishore Tiwari,Karuna Shankar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

¶8

By means of the instant revision filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, the revisionist has challenged the validity of the order dated 07.11.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Unnao rejecting his application for release on bail and the order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Unnao dismissing Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2022 filed by the revisionist against the order rejecting his bail application.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the inquiry made by the District Probation Officer, there is no defects found against the revisionist. The revisionist is in jail since 12.05.2022. The prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that she is 18 years old and there was a consensual relationship made between the victim as well as the revisionist. She has refused to undergo radio-logical examination as well as internal medical test.

¶10

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

¶11

psychological treatment and proper education, the revisionist can be made independent and no adverse material is available against the revisionist.

¶12

Perused the record.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

Having considered the fact that the revisionist having no criminal history has been in jail since 22.09.2022, statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the fact that she has refused to undergo radiological examination as well as internal medical examination,, I am of the view that the revision deserves to be allowed.

¶16

In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the criminal revision is liable to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 07.11.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Unnao rejecting his application for release on bail and the order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Unnao are set aside.

¶17

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 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

¶18

constant check on his activities. Both the sureties are directed to be close relatives of the revisionist juvenile.

¶19

Order Date :- 22.4.2024 prateek

¶20

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vishal Tiwari Thru. His Mother Nanhi Devi v. State of U.P. Thru.Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Tiwari Thru. His Mother Nanhi Devi v. State of U.P. Thru.Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

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

Rajinder (Rajinder Lodh in Charge Sheet) Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

Deepak Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Amarjeet Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Sunil Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Akshay Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anupam Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another