Allowed

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

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2024CRLR/967/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to a juvenile revisionist previously deemed a juvenile delinquent under POCSO and a minor accused under IPC 302/201. The Allahabad High Court set aside lower court orders and directed release on a Rs. 10,000 bond with conditional monitoring of education and conduct.

What did the court decide?

The revisionist is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of similar amount, with conditions regarding education and criminal conduct.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73334

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 967 of 2024 Revisionist :- Juvenile Delinquent X Thru. His Father Y Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Jaikaran Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kanchan Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Ms. Kanchan Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶6

The present revision has been preferred with a prayer to set aside the judgement and order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Court/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 64/2024; and order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in bail application filed in Case Crime No.73 of 2017, under sections 302, 201 IPC., Police Station - Udaipur, District - Pratapgarh.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that there is no eye witness of the case and in the confessional statement of co-accused Sandeep Singh, name of the applicant has surfaced and allegation of committing crime has been levelled against him. Further submission is that confessional statement of co-accused has no evidentiary value. A perusal of FIR indicates that co-accused Sandeep Singh has informed about the occurrence of the incident and the name of the persons who were allegedly involved in the crime.

¶8

Learned counsel submitted that the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded at that time, reiterating the version contained in the FIR. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the report of the Probation Officer is favourable in respect of many things but lastly, he had mentioned in the report that he was not given good opinion in respect of the accused by the villagers; but the same is not based on reasonable grounds.

¶9

It is further submitted that the co-accused Sandeep Singh has been granted bail in Criminal Revision No.261 of 2019 by this Court on 13.12.2019 and other co-accused namely Smt. Sarita Devi and Tarawati against whom allegation of commission of crime has been levelled have also been granted bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.886 of 2019 on 01.07.2021 and 6463 of 2018 on 02.08.2021 respectively.

¶10

Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant is minor, aged about 16 years and is in jail since 24.07.2017 and more than six years have passed and the court below has not considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not point out anything material to substantiate his contention and rebut the submissions advanced by the counsel for the revisionist.

¶12

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has also opposed the bail and adopted the same arguments as advanced by learned AGA.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid submissions, I find that the revisionist may be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the judgement and order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Court/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 64/2024 and order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in bail application filed in Case Crime No.73 of 2017, under sections 302, 201 IPC., Police Station Udaipur, District Pratapgarh, are set aside and the revisionist - Juvenile is directed to be put in the custody of his father and be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000/with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board subject to the condition that the parents/guardian of the revisionist will take care of his education and betterment and will not allow to indulge him in any criminal activity and will keep constant check on his activities.

¶15

The revision stands allowed .

¶16

Order Date :- 6.11.2024 Pks

¶17

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile Delinquent X Thru. His Father 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Surat Verma and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Raja Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Kushagra Srivastava and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Manoj Kumar Dwivedi and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mohammed Haseen and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Sahil @ Chhotu @ Mahesh Nayar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.