Allowed

Mr. X Thru. His Father Mr. Y v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2024CRLR/240/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a criminal revision challenging the rejection of bail for a juvenile accused in a murder case. Holding that the accusation was based on suspicion, lack of eye witnesses, and insufficient sniffer dog evidence, the court set aside the lower order and released the juvenile on bail with strict conditions regarding guardian supervision and probation officer reporting.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; lower court order dismissing bail set aside. Revisionist-Juvenile released on bail upon furnishing personal bond with two solvent sureties and compliance with conditions regarding gu

Mr. X Thru. His Father Mr. Y vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:25857

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 240 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Mr. X Thru. His Father Mr. Y Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Ayodhya Prasad Shukla,Alok Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri A.P. Shukla, the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, Sri Rishikesh Verma, the learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 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 23.01.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge POCSO Act, Gonda dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 2024 filed by the revisionist against the order rejecting his bail application.

¶9

3.The opposite party no. 2 lodged FIR No. 63 of 2023, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Tarabganj, District Gonda on 09.02.2023 against three persons, including the revisionist, his brother and sister and one Suraj Tiwari, alleging that the complainant's brother had gone missing regarding which a missing report was lodged by his father on 07.02.2023 and on 09.02.2023, his dead body was found in an agricultural field. He alleged that he believed that his brother had been killed by the accused persons.

¶10

In the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also, he expressed a suspicion that the incident was caused by the accused persons. There was no eye witness of the incident.

¶11

1 of 3

¶12

The appellate order confirming rejection of bail makes a mention of the report of the District Probation Officer wherein it was recorded that after the incident, the persons from the complainant's side had attempted to damage the house of the juvenile revisionist.

¶13

The learned AGA has opposed the prayer for release of the revisionist on bail and he has submitted that it is recorded in the appellate order that the sniffer dog of the police had gone to the house of the revisionist.

¶14

Two persons who were implicated on the basis of the statement recorded during investigation, namely, Ankit Pandey alias Daddu and Kavita Tiwari, who is the revisionist's sister, have been granted bail and copies of their bail orders have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 8 & 9 of the revision.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the revisionist has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of suspicion, there is no eye witness of the incident; the evidence of sniffer dog is not such a strong evidence as would warrant denial of bail to the revisionist and that Social Enquiry Report submitted by the District Probation Officer does not contain any such recommendation as would warrant rejection of his release on bail, I am of the view that the revision deserves to be allowed.

¶16

Accordingly, this revision stands allowed . The order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge POCSO Act, Gonda dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 2024, is set aside.

¶17

Let the revisionist-Juvenile be released on bail in FIR No. 63 of 2023, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Tarabganj, District Gonda 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

2 of 3

¶19

(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;

¶20

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

Order Date :- 20.3.2024

¶25

Pradeep/-

¶26

3 of 3

¶27

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

Mr. X Thru. His Father Mr. Y v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. X Thru. His Father Mr. Y v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Adalat Prasad and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Master X Thru. His Father in Case Crime No. 374/2023 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Amit Sharma @ Amit Kumar Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Master S Thru. His Father Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Umesh Gaud @ Unesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Juvenile X in Case Cr. No. 758/2023 Thru. Her Father Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Women and Child Development and 4 Others