Allowed

X Juvenile v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2024CRLR/2061/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A juvenile implicated in a dacoity case, unnamed in the FIR but named in a co-accused's confession, sought bail via revision under the Juvenile Justice Act after his appeal was rejected. The High Court allowed the revision, set aside both orders, and granted bail with guardian undertakings and probation supervision.

What did the court decide?

Orders of JJ Board and appellate court set aside; juvenile released on bail through father Ashok Kumar Mahawar with two sureties, subject to guardian undertakings and monthly reporting to District Pro

X Juvenile vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:144286

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2061 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- X Juvenile Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pushpendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Pushpendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on records.

¶7

The present revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred by the revisionist- X Juvenile , against the order dated 06.03.2024 passed by Special Sessions Judge (POCSO Act) / Additional Sessions Judge, Banda in Criminal Appeal No. 13 / 2023 (X Juvenile Vs. State of U.P. and another) and the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Banda arising out of Case Crime No. 212 of 2023, under Sections 395, 412, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Bisanda, District Banda, with a further prayer to grant bail to the juvenile revisionist in the aforesaid case.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the revisionist is not named in the first information report. It is further submitted that the name of the revisionist has surfaced in the present matter for the first time in the confessional statement of coaccused Umar. It is submitted that although there is a recovery shown of one 315 bore country-made pistol and Rs. 5000/- from the revisionist but there is no independent witness to the same. While placing paragraph 15 of the affidavit it is submitted that along with the present case one other case has been instituted against the applicant whereas the applicant has no other criminal antecedents for which paragraph 34 of the affidavit has been placed. It is submitted that co-accused Shakil Ahmad @ Salman @ Sunil Verma, Umar, Bhagwanva @ Hem Chandra, Imran, Rakesh Meena and Suraj Kumar Mahawar have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 04.08.2023, 03.10.2023, 10.10.2023, 04.10.2023, 01.12.2023 and 02.12.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 33187 of 2023, 37614 of 2023, 41034 of 2023, 42199 of 2023, 50109 of 2023 and 51616 of 2023, the copy of the said orders have been produced before the Court which are taken on record. The revisionist is in observation home since 30.05.2023.

¶9

Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments as aforesaid.

¶10

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the revisionist is not named in the first information report. His implication in the matter is on the basis of the confessional statement of coaccused. There is no independent witness to the said incident. The report of the District Probation Officer shows that the family members of the revisionist are having good conduct. Co-accused Shakil Ahmad @ Salman @ Sunil Verma, Umar, Bhagwanva @ Hem Chandra, Imran, Rakesh Meena and Suraj Kumar Mahawar have been granted bail.

¶11

The present revision is allowed . The impugned judgement and order dated 06.03.2024 passed by Special Sessions Judge (POCSO Act) / Additional Sessions Judge, Banda and the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Banda in the aforesaid case are hereby set aside. The bail application of the revisionist is allowed.

¶12

Let the revisionist- X Juvenile , through his natural guardian / father Ashok Kumar Mahawar be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his father furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Banda, subject to the following conditions:

¶13

(i) that the natural guardian / father 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 be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.

¶14

(ii) that the guardian / father will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juvenile will be placed in a school and encouraged to his studies and not allow to waste his time in unproductive and mere recreational pursuits.

¶15

(iii) The revisionist and his father will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Monday of every month with effect from the first Monday of the month next after release from custody, and, if during any calendar month the first Monday falls on a holiday then on the following working day.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 5.9.2024 AS Rathore

¶18

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

X Juvenile v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

X Juvenile v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Krishna Kant vs State of U.P. and Another

Minor X vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anupam Pandey vs State of Up and Another

Krishna Kant Solanki vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sonu Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Singh vs State of Up and Another