SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Najeer Khan @ Khan Sahab @ Bandar vs State Of U.P. & Another on 25 February, 2020

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

?Court No. – 14

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 1728 of 2019

Revisionist :- Najeer Khan @ Khan Sahab @ Bandar

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocte,Santosh Kumar Singh,Veer Keshwar Singh

Hon’ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

Counter affidavit/objection filed on behalf of State today in Court is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the state and perused the record.

The present revision has been filed against order dated 10.12.2019 passed by Additional District Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Faizabad in Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2019 (Najeer Khan @ Khan Sahab @ Bandar vs. State of U.P. Ors.) as well as the order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad by means of which the bail application of the revisionist was rejected.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist has been falsely been implicated in the case and he was minor at the time of incident. It has also been submitted that the learned Courts below have not appreciated the fact that the revisionist is a juvenile and entitled to get benefit of provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short ‘Act of 2000’). Section 12 of the Act of 2000 clearly provides that if the revisionist is juvenile then he should be released on bail, but learned Courts below fully ignored the provisions of the Act of 2000. The revisionist has been falsely implicated in this case. The revisionist is in custody since 12.05.2019 and further detention of the revisionist is not required for any purpose. There is no evidence to show that if the revisionist is released on bail, then his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat ends of justice. Learned counsel for the revisionist further contended that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are not based upon definite facts and they are based on surmises and conjectures.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. defended the impugned order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in declining the bail to the revisionist as well as the judgment passed by the Appellate Court upholding the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. The order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in declining the bail and also the order passed by appellate court upholding the order of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board are based on materials on record. He further submitted that if the revisionist is released on bail, then his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat ends of justice

I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record.

In the light of above statutory provision bail prayer of the juvenile revisionist has to be considered on the surrounding facts and circumstances. Accordingly, I find that in this case no such condition exists on the basis of which the application of the juvenile could be dismissed. Therefore, the revision deserves to be allowed.

Thus, the order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the appellate court and order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board are not sustainable in law and are hereby quashed. The revision is allowed. The revisionist Najeer Khan @ Khan Sabah @ Bandar be enlarged on bail in Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2019 arising out of case crime no.214 of 2019, under section 377 IPC, Section 3(2)V of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Poorakalander, District Faizabad on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Order Date :- 25.2.2020

nishant/-

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation