Partly allowed

Sameer @ Monu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2024/757/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against an appellate order denying bail, the High Court allowed the revision partly. Relying on a Supreme Court judgment, the Court held that the appellate court failed to record a finding on the proviso to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, required to justify denial of bail. The appeal was remitted to be decided within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 13.06.2024 passed by the appellate court set aside; matter remitted to the appellate court to decide the appeal within six weeks.

Sameer @ Monu Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:65220

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 757 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Sameer @ Monu

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

¶6

Counsel for Revisionist :- Satya Prakash,Raj Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gajendra Yadav,Keshav Ram Chaurasia

¶7

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the opposite party Nos.1, 3 & 4 and Shri Gajendra Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.2.

¶9

Instant revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2015') has been filed against the order dated 13.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge / Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.168 of 2021, under Sections 366/376-D, 506 of the IPC, Police Station Ahirauli, District Ambedkar Nagar, whereby the order dated 07.05.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar, has been affirmed.

¶10

Sole legal ground as urged by the learned counsel for the revisionist while raising challenge to the aforesaid order dated 13.06.2024, which is part of the revision, is that considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Juvenile In Conflict With Law V vs The State of Rajasthan & Anr. passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.9566 of 2024, decided on 14.08.2024, the Juvenile Justice Board as well as

¶11

Special Court is specifically required to record a finding pertaining to proviso to Sub-section (1) of the Section 12 of the Act, 2015 and without recording the said finding, the bail could not have been denied.

¶12

The contention is that learned appellate court vide its order dated 13.06.2024 has considered all aspects of the matter yet has failed to record its finding with regard to proviso to Subsection (1) of the Section 12 of the Act, 2015 consequently on this ground alone, the impugned appellate order dated 13.06.2024 merits to be set aside.

¶13

The Apex Court in the case of Juvenile In Conflict With Law V (supra) has held as under:-

¶14

"6. From the phraseology used in sub-section 1 of Section 12, a juvenile in conflict with law has to be necessarily released on bail with or without surety or placed under supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person unless proviso is applicable.

¶15

7. We have perused all the orders passed earlier by the JJ Board, Special Court and High Court and specially the order dated 11th December, 2023 passed by the JJ Board. There is no finding recorded that the proviso to sub-Section 1 of Section 12 is applicable to the facts of the case. Without recording the said finding, bail could not have been denied to juvenile in conflict with law."

¶16

A perusal of the order of the learned appellate Court dated 13.06.2024 would indicate that the learned appellate Court while passing the said judgment has failed to give its finding on the provisions of Sub-section (1) of the Section 12 of the Act, 2015.

¶17

Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed. The order dated 13.06.2024 passed by the appellate court is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned appellate court to decide the appeal of the revisionist keeping in view the observations made above.

¶18

Let the appeal be decided within a period of six weeks from

¶19

the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law provided there is no legal impediment.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.9.2024 S. Shivhare

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sameer @ Monu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer @ Monu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Guddi Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Pradeep Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Education Lko. and 3 Others

Manoj Kumar Saxena vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Food and Civil Supply Govt. Lko and 3 Others

Dr. Mukta Ram Pandey and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture Edu. Research Lko. and 3 Others

Gyanendra Tiwari and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Dr. Surachna Trivedi vs Addl. D.M. / Authorized Controller Bhagwan Deen Arya Kanya Post Graduate Degree College and Another