Allowed

Amit v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Jul 2019CRLR/1125/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Revision allowed by the Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh. The court quashed the appellate order denying bail to minor revisionist Amit. The judgment held that denying bail solely based on the serious nature of the rape offence overlooked Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Bail was granted subject to a bond and undertaking to avoid hardened criminals.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the Juvenile revisionist Amit via a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties, subject to an undertaking not to associate with hardened criminals.

Amit Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1125 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Amit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Jatan Yadav,Kunwar Rakesh Kumar Verma

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ram Jatan Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 03.01.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 2018 (CNR No. UPAG-01022703-2018) (Amit (Legal Guardain vs. State) arising out of Case Crime No. 728 of 2018 under Sections 328, 376, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Jagdishpura, District- Agra.

¶7

It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that accusedapplicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is lying in jail since 06.07.2018. He has been declared above 16 years of age but below 18 years, having been found 16 years 10 months and 7 days old on the date of occurrence by the order of Juvenile Justice Board dated 17.11.2018, which is annexed at Page Nos. 83 and 84 of the paper-book. There is no appeal pending against the said order hence, the same has become final. It is further argued that in the medical examination report, no injury has been found to have been suffered by the victim. She has been found to be 17 years of age in her ossification test and the report of which is annexed at Page No. 74 of the paperbook. In medical examination report, no recent sign of sexual mark have been noticed, although the same was conducted on 04.07.2018 while occurrence had taken place about two months ago. The F.I.R., in this case has been lodged after two months of the date of occurrence and no justifiable explanation for the said delay has been given. Though the report of social investigation has not been annexed but he has drawn attention to the report of District Probation Officer in which it has been stated that the accused-revisionist is an innocent child and he needs to be given practical, social and moral education and nothing else. He has also drawn attention to the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which shows that she had gone with the accused at his invitation where she was given cold drink and

¶8

her age is found to be 17 years according to medical examination report/ ossification test. Moreover, there is no injury on her person nor on the private part. Therefore, the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court both have dismissed the bail application of accused-revisionist erroneously and hence both orders deserves to be set aside.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the release of revisionist on bail.

¶10

Sri Ram Jatan Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 did not make any specific argument but he has given reason for delay in lodging of the F.I.R. that the victim had fallen sick.

¶11

I have gone through the F.I.R., according to which, the informant Pankaj Kumar, who is uncle of the victim had lodged report on 03.07.2018 at Police Station- Jagdishpura, DistrictAgra stating therein that the victim was student of Class IX, aged about 15 years and studying in Ramkamal Inter College, Kedar Nagar and she also used to take coaching classes in Bansal Academy near Bank of India, Bodla. About two months ago, the accused-revisionist who was the resident of the same mohalla and used to talk to his niece had taken her into a restaurant and she had gone with him where his friend Saurabh Khan was already sitting. They all had cold drink and thereafter, his niece had fainted and the accused-revisionist had committed rape upon her and now the said accused used to issue threats on phone that he had prepared a video clipping which would be made viral by him and that he would forcibly marry her, if it is not done, he would throw acid on her. On the basis of the said complaint, F.I.R. was registered against the accused-revisionist under Sections 328, 376, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act.

¶12

I have perused the entire record and found that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court both have dismissed the bail application of the revisionist only finding the offence allegedly committed by the accused which is very serious in nature and has not taken into consideration the provision of Section12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which says that the accused may be released on bail if there is no likelihood of his coming in association with any hardened criminal or that his release would not expose him to any moral, physical and psychological danger/threat or that ends of justice would not be defeated by his release. No such evidence appears to have been gathered by the prosecution even in the social investigation report and nothing has emerged showing that there was any likelihood of the accused falling in the company of any hardened criminals. Therefore the view of the forums below that he would fall in the company of the hardened criminals, if he is released does not appear to be sound view taken by the

¶13

Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court. In a case of juvenile it is settled law that the seriousness of offence alone shall not be taken into consideration which appears to have been over looked by the Board as well as appellate court.

¶14

In view of above, this court is of the view that this revision deserves to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed. The order dated 03.01.2019 of the appellate court is quashed.

¶15

Let the Juvenile revisionist- Amit be released on bail during trial on his father Sri Rajesh Kumar furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board subject to furnishing an undertaking that he shall not allow the revisionist to come in association with any hardened criminal and that on each and every date of trial, he shall also appear before the court concerned. In case, he makes any default, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail.

¶16

Order Date :- 17.7.2019 V.S.Singh

Amit v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit v. State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

Rihana Begum and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kailash and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Shamshad Ahmad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Nagma Nasihat Lari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeev Kumar (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Kallu @ Narendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another