Allowed

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

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2024CRLR/90/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the revision filed by a juvenile challenging the rejection of his bail application by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Children's Court. Relying on the Social Enquiry Report and bail granted to a co-accused, the Court set aside the impugned orders and released the juvenile on bail subject to conditions regarding guardianship and supervision.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; impugned bail rejection orders set aside; juvenile released on bail subject to conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:23662

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 90 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Master S Thru. His Father

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another

¶6

Counsel for Revisionist :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Ramakar Shukla , learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, Smt. Arti Gupta Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶9

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 06.11.2023, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh rejecting his application for release on bail and the order dated 02.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Children Court, Pratapgarh dismissing Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2023 filed by the revisionist against the order rejecting his bail application.

¶10

The F.I.R. No. 0106 of 2023 was lodged on 16.02.2023 by the complainant alleging that the complainant's son had been strangulated by some unknown persons.

¶11

In the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he has stated that his son had been killed by his wife Rinku Devi @ Radhika along with her lover Tanveer. Tanveer stated in his custodial statement that he had killed the deceased along with the revisionist, Shadan and Ramesh Kumar

¶12

Harijan.

¶13

The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of material collected during investigation which have already been annexed with the revision.

¶14

A copy of Social Enquiry Report submitted by District Probation Officer has been annexed with the revision, which states that mixed reactions were received upon making enquiry against the revisionist. The co-accused Zeeshan Quraishi has already been enlarged on bail by this court by means of an order dated 18.01.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No.3282 of 2023.

¶15

Keeping in view the aforesaid recommendations of the District Probationary Officer, I am of the view that the revision deserves to be allowed.

¶16

Accordingly, this revision stands allowed . The orders dated 06.11.2023, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh and the order dated 02.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Children Court, Pratapgarh dismissing Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2023 filed by the revisionist are hereby are set aside.

¶17

Let the revisionist-Juvenile be released on bail in Case Crime No.106 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B, 404, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (V), 3 (2) (va) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh 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

(i) the natural guardian will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come into

¶19

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

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶25

Order Date :- 18.3.2024 Ram.

¶26

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Master S Thru. His Father 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

Shyam Narayan Awasthi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lucknow, U.P. and Another

Dr. Gayas Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, U.P. Lucknow

Mohammad Daood Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Shivpyari and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Mohd. Mahfooz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another