Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of U.P.

.....the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. .....sessions judge against the order of the additional c.j.m. the learned sessions judge partly allowed the appeal declaring the revisionist to be a juvenile but refused to grant bail to him. against the said order the present revision has been filed.3. i have perused the impugned judgment. the provision contained in section 12 of the act no. 56 of 2000, lays down that if a juvenile accused is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a board, such person shall be released on bail but he shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the 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 the ends of justice. thus every juvenile, for whatsoever offence he is charged with, shall be released on bail except under the above circumstances. the learned sessions judge has given first ground that accused may repeat the offence, but it is no ground for refusing the bail. the learned sessions judge has further observed that on release there can be danger to his life. no such evidence was before him to infer that release of accused would put his life in danger.4. of course the bail application of the juvenile can be refused, if the above grounds or any one of the grounds exists. the existence of such ground should not mean the guess-work of the court but it should be substantiated by some evidence on the record. considering this, i find that the revisionist, being juvenile, is entitled to bail.5. the revision is allowed. the order dated 28-8-202, so far as it relates to the refusal of bail, is set aside and the revisionist sanjay kumar may be admitted to bail in case crime no. 139 of 2002, under sections 392 and 411, i.p.c., police station, arniya, district bulandshahr on the terms and conditions and amount of sureties as deemed fit by the concerned court.