New LIVE Course: Learn the Practical Nuances of IPR Drafting by Adv. Gautam Matani. Register Now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Juvenile Justice Act

Kalpana.S ,
  07 March 2008       Share Bookmark

Court :
Allahabad High Court
Brief :
Under Juvenile Justice Act order refusing bail to juvenile by Board and S.J. is not proper.
Citation :


Court No.53.

Criminal Revision Defective no. 88 of 2007

Lavi Yadav alias Love Yadav. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .Revisionist.

State of U.P. and another . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Opp. Parties.


This is a revision against judgment and order dated 7.12.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Agra and order dated 16.11.2006 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Agra in case crime no. 41/2006 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C. P.S. Nagla Khangar district Firozabad.
Since certified copy of the order dated 16.11.2006 was not filed by the revisionist, this revision was registered as Defective Criminal Revision no. 88 of 2007. An application for exemption was also filed by the revisionist and that application was allowed by Hon'ble V.K.Chaturvedi,J. vide his order dated 23.2.07 providing that "filing of certified copy of the order dated 16.11.2006 is dispensed with." There after it was ordered to be connected with Criminal Revision No.549 of 2006 and A.G.A. was directed to file counter affidavit within three weeks and it was ordered to be listed on 23.3.07.Under these circumstances, when the requirement of filing of the certified copy of the order has been dispensed with vide order dated 23.2.07 regular number of the criminal revision should have been allotted by the office. Let it be done now.
I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State.
The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that the revisionist is involved in case crime no.41/2006 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C. P.S.Nagla Khangar district Firozabad. He had taken a plea that he was juvenile on the date of incident. His above plea was allowed and he was declared to be juvenile. Thereafter he moved an application for grant of bail in the above case. That application was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 16.11.2006 on the ground that there were several cases pending against him and so after his release he would come into contact with criminals. Aggrieved with that order he filed Criminal
( Juvenile ) Appeal No.207 of 2006, Lavi Yadav alias Love Yadav vs. State. That appeal was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge on the same ground. Aggrieved with that order the revisionist Lavi Yadav alias Love Yadav has filed this revision.
It may be mentioned that Juvenile Justice Board, Agra had rejected the bail application of the applicant in the present case as well as in case crime no. 73 of 2006 under sections 364-A I.P.C. P.S. Nasirpur district Firozabad vide joint order dated 16.11.2006. In case crime no. 73 of 2006 under section 364-A I.P.C. revisionist had filed Criminal Revision no. 549 of 2007 and that revision was allowed by Hon'ble A.K. Roopanwal,J. vide order dated 10.12.2007. It may also be mentioned that certified copy of the order of the Juvenile Justice Board was filed in the above revision and file of that revision was also summoned in this revision and has been perused by me.
Now the question to be considered is whether the revisionist should be granted bail in the present case or not.
It was submitted by the learned counsel for the prosecution that since several cases are pending against the revisionist, bail should not be granted to him. On the other hand the learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the present case in which the revisionist has been detained is a case of no injury. He pointed out that according to the prosecution case certain accused persons had fired at police party but no injury was received by any one and three co-accused were arrested on the spot by the police and three other persons had allegedly run away from the spot, and those arrested accused named the accused Lavi @ Love Yadav. as one who had participated in the incident and had run away from the spot. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that besides the above statement of the co-accused, there is no evidence against him. He was not arrested on the spot in the present case nor any recovery was made from him, and so he should be bailed out in the present case.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but taking into consideration the facts and circumstances narrated above I am of the view that the revisionist deserves to be bailed out in this case and the courts below erred by rejecting his bail application.
The revision, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Sessions Judge, Agra are set aside and the revisionist is directed to be released on bail on execution of personal bond by his mother and two surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Agra. One of the sureties would be a male near relative of the revisionist who shall also give an undertaking that he shall keep the revisionist under his supervision and see that he does not come into contact with criminals.

"Loved reading this piece by Kalpana.S ?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Published in Criminal Law
Views :


Latest Judgments

More »