'S' Revisionist (Minor) Thru. His Uncle Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:42716

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 413 of 2024

Revisionist :- 'S' Revisionist (Minor) Thru. His Uncle Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Mansi Gupta,Mohammad Ashraf Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Ms. Mansi Gupta, the learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Ran Vijay Singh, the learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant revision has been filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 seeking quashing of the judgment and order 19.02.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur, by which the bail application of the revisionist has been rejected and the order dated 19.03.2024, passed by the Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Sitapur in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2024 (Shivnandan Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. & another) by which the criminal appeal filed by the revisionist has also been rejected.

¶9

The F.I.R. was lodged against two named persons not including the revisionist stating that accused persons had killed the informant's husband. During investigation, the informant reiterated the F.I.R. version, however, an eye witness stated that he had seen co-accused Shivanand assaulting the deceased with belcha and two other persons were catching hold of the victim. Later on, it is claimed during investigation that one of the coaccused person, who was catching hold the deceased, was the revisionist whereas the other person, against whom similar allegation has been levelled, has already been granted bail by Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur vide order dated 15.05.2024 passed in Case No.31 of 2024.

¶10

A copy of the Social Enquiry Report submitted by the District Probation Officer has been annexed with the revision which does not mention any such fact as may warrant continuation of the revisionist in custody.

¶11

It has been submitted on behalf of the revisionist that the revisionist is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the

¶12

present case and he has no criminal history.

¶13

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision and he has submitted that the offence committed by the revisionist is heinous in nature.

¶14

While deciding an application for release of juvenile on bail the court has to take into consideration the factors mentioned in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and this court is not to be influenced by nature of offence allegedly committed by the juvenile.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that although it is claimed that the incident had been witnessed by a person, revisionist is not named either in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; the alleged eye witness claims that the revisionist was catching hold of the victim along with other person and the report of the Social Enquiry conducted by the District Probation Officer, I am of the view that the revision deserves to be allowed and the juvenile is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, this revision stands allowed . The order dated 19.02.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur, in Criminal Case No.70 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.211 of 2023, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Mahmoodabad, District Sitapur by which the bail application of the revisionist has been rejected and the order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Sitapur in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2024 (Shivnandan Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. & another), by which the criminal appeal filed by the revisionist has also been rejected, are hereby set aside.

¶17

Let the revisionist-Juvenile 'S' be released on bail in aforesaid crime number upon his guardian furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) the natural guardian will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the guardian will ensure that the juvenile will not indulge in any criminal activity;

¶19

(ii) natural guardian will further furnish an undertaking to the

¶20

effect that the juvenile will pursue his study at the appropriate level which he would be encouraged to do.

¶21

(iii) juvenile accompanied by his natural guardian, will report to the Probation Officer on the first working day of every calendar month. The D.P.O. shall maintain a diary recording their attendance.

¶22

(iv) The District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the juvenile and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board concerned.

¶23

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court/J.J.Board shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, uninfluenced by any finding or observation whatsoever in this order.

¶24

[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]

¶25

Order Date :- 7.6.2024 Anupam S/-

¶26

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

'S' Revisionist (Minor) Thru. His Uncle v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

'S' Revisionist (Minor) Thru. His Uncle v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abdul Kabeer Usmani Thru. His Father Noor Usmani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Varun Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Saeed @ Mohammad Saeed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Indra Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Chhotey Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Devendra Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another