Partly allowed

Juvenile X Thru. His Maternal Uncle Y v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2024CRLR/409/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A juvenile sought revision against an appellate order denying him bail in a murder case. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling that courts must record a specific finding on the proviso to Section 12(1) JJ Act before denying juvenile bail, the High Court set aside the appellate order and remanded the appeal for fresh decision within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Appellate order dated 19.03.2024 set aside; appeal remitted to the appellate court for fresh decision within four weeks.

Juvenile X Thru. His Maternal Uncle Y vs State of U.P… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:57376

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 409 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Juvenile X Thru. His Maternal Uncle Y Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow And Another

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Karan Veer Singh,Kirti Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prabhu Sharan,Rajesh Kumar Sharma,Suman Diwakar

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

1. Despite the names of Shri Suman Diwakar, Advocate, Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate and Shri Prabhu Sharan, Advocate having been shown as counsels for the respondent, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent to prosecute the case, consequently this revision is being decided after hearing learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

2. 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 19.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.5, POCSO Act-I, Unnao in Criminal Appeal No.78 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.47 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Behta Muzawar, District Unnao whereby the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Unnao has been affirmed.

¶9

3. Sole legal ground as urged by the learned counsel for the revisionist while raising challenge to the aforesaid order dated 19.03.2024 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 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.

¶10

The contention is that learned appellate court vide its order dated 19.03.2024 has considered all aspects of the matter yet has failed to record its finding with regard to proviso to Sub section 1 of the Section 12 of the Act, 2015 consequently on this ground alone, the impugned appellate order dated 19.03.2024 merits to be set aside.

¶11

Another ground which has been urged by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that other co-accused persons namely Kapil, Seema @ Kamla, Komal and Kailash have been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc Bail Applications No. 4290 of 2024, 13303 of 2023 and 4052 of 2024 respectively as such revisionist-juvenile is also entitled for bail.

¶12

6. However, considering that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Juvenile In Conflict With Law V (supra) has held that specific finding with regard to proviso to sub section 1 of the Section 12 of the Act, 2015 is to be recorded by the court while considering the application for bail, which has not been considered by the learned appellate court while passing the impugned order dated 19.03.2024 consequently instant revision is partly allowed.

¶13

The order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.5, POCSO Act-I, Unnao is set aside.

¶14

The matter is remitted to the learned appellate court to decide the appeal of the revisionist keeping in view the observations made above. Let the appeal be decided within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law provided there is no legal impediment.

¶15

Order Date :- 22.8.2024 prateek

¶16

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Juvenile X Thru. His Maternal Uncle Y v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile X Thru. His Maternal Uncle Y v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

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

Greeneffect Waste Management Ltd. Thru. Authorized Representative Yuvraj Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko and 3 Others

Shravan Kumar @ Shravan Kumar Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Suhail Alam @ Raja and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Kamlesh Saroj @ Kamlesh Kumar Saroj and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shahjad Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Dulli Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another