Allowed

Shahnawaz v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2024/516/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision challenged the dismissal of an appeal and rejection of bail. The court quashed both orders, noting the victim's lack of injuries and the juvenile status of the applicant, granting bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 01.07.2021 (Sessions Judge) and 18.06.2021 (Juvenile Justice Board) quashed.; Revisionist released on bail on personal bond and two sureties.

Shahnawaz Vs State of U.P. and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:985

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 516 of 2021

¶4

Revisionist :- Shahnawaz Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Atul Kumar Singh,Amit Kumar,Pawan Kumar Pandey,Rajesh Kumar Agnihotri,Sachin Verma

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Vyas, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

¶8

The instant revision has been filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 assailing the validity of the order dated 01.07.2021, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.11, Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2021 filed by the revisionist herein has been dismissed as well as order dated 18.06.2021, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the bail application of the revisionist has been rejected.

¶9

The aforesaid case was initiated on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 25.01.2021 in furtherance of an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed on 09.11.2020 alleging that when the informant's daughter aged about 11 years had gone to the fields at about 12.00 noon on 26.10.2020 along with her younger sister the revisionist dragged her in a sugarcane field and raped her. The victim has supported the F.I.R. allegation in her statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. In

¶10

the medico legal examination report of the victim no mark of injury or sign of use of force has been reported. In the statement of the younger sister of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she merely stated that she was present with the victim; the applicant dragged her inside a field, she and her sister shouted and the applicant went away.

¶11

It has also been stated on behalf of the revisionist that he has no criminal history and he is languishing in custody since 10.02.2021.

¶12

The notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 but nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant was a juvenile at the time of incident and he attained the majority in the intervening period; that the allegations are not supported by any medico legal examination report; that the victim's younger sister who was present at the time of alleged incident has merely stated that the applicant had dragged the victim and when she and her sister shouted the revisionist went away and that the applicant is languishing in custody since 10.02.2021 and considering the statement of the learned counsel for the revisionist that the trial has not yet commenced, I am of the view that the revision deserves to be allowed.

¶14

Accordingly, this revision stands allowed . The order dated 01.07.2021, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.11, Lakhimpur Kheri as well as order dated 18.06.2021, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri, are hereby quashed.

¶15

Let the revisionist be released on bail on his furnishing a

¶16

personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶17

(i) the revisionist shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶18

(ii) the revisionist shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶19

(iii) the revisionist shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶20

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 4.1.2024 Ram.

¶22

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

Shahnawaz v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahnawaz v. State of U.P. and Ors.

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

Dr. Jitendra Pandey and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Faizabad and Ors.

Rohit Vishwakarma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Others

Dharmesh Kumar Vs Smt. Anita Kumari and Another

Bablu @ Harinam Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Satish Chandra Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Sumit Kumar Verma Thru. His Brother Manish Kumar Vs Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow and Another