Allowed

Rajkumar (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2019CRLR/1612/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a criminal revision filed by a juvenile accused (Rajkumar) challenging rejection of his bail. The High Court set aside orders by the Juvenile Justice Board and appellate court, holding it a fit case for bail due to lack of evidence indicating risk or delay in FIR, despite charges of rape and molestation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders rejecting bail set aside. Accused released on bail with personal bond of Rs. one lac, two sureties, and undertaking regarding associate, education, and appearance.

Rajkumar (Minor) Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1612 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Rajkumar (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rabindra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Rabindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶7

None appears from the side of the opposite party no. 2.

¶8

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.02.2019 passed by Juvenile Court/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Pilibhit, in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2018 (Ram Kumar, minor vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 29.08.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Pilibhit in Case Crime No. 79 of 2018 under section 452, 376, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Diyoriyakalan District Pilibhit whereby both the Courts below have rejected the bail application moved on behalf of the revisionist.

¶9

It is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has been falsely implicated because of village party-bandi. There was delay of one month 4 days in lodging the FIR. In medical examination report no sign of rape has been found by the doctor and it is recorded that no evidence of any force of sexual violence was found. The age of the victim is recorded by the doctor to be about 15 years. Nothing adverse has come on record in social investigation report against the accused-applicant who is minor just 16 years one month and 20 days of age which has been determined by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 20.6.2018 and the same has been filed today through supplementary affidavit. Therefore, the Juvenile Justice Board as well as appellate court have rejected the bail application erroneously only on the ground that the allegation made against the accused-applicant is serious in nature, which need to be set aside. It is further argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent as in the social investigation report nothing adverse has been found to the effect that if he is released on bail, he would come in association with hardened criminals. The trial court has erroneously mentioned that the purpose of justice would be frustrated in case the accused-revisionist is released on bail. He has further pointed out that in the medical examination report of the victim, no injury has been found to have been caused either on her person or on her private part.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of quashing the impugned order and has argued that there is sufficient evidence against the accused revisionist, hence the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court should be upheld.

¶11

I have gone through the FIR. The father of the victim has lodged the FIR

¶12

in which it has been mentioned that on 1.3.2018, opposite party no. 2 had gone out of the house in order to attend to his work leaving alone his daughter in the house. The accused belonging to the same village entered into the house and had dragged his daughter/victim inside the room at pistol point and had threatened that if she would scream, she would be killed and started molesting her. In the meantime, the mother of the informant, who had gone to the house of her son, came there and found that the door of the room was closed from inside and thereafter the mother of the informant screamed loudly and then the accused fled from there by the route of the roof of the house. When the informant reached home, the entire facts were narrated to him and then he lodged the FIR on 04.04.2018 at the concerned police station. The statement of the victim has been recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. on 12.4.2018 wherein she has stated that she was raped by the accused-applicant and thereafter the accused fled away. No use of force has been recorded by the doctor who had examined the victim. No dead or alive spermatozoa is found in the internal examination of the victim nor external injury has been noticed. The statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. shows an amendment of the version of the FIR and in FIR no allegation of rape has been mentioned nor in her statement the victim has stated that she was raped by the accused-applicant. I find that in the social investigation report, no such evidence has been collected by the prosecution which would indicate that the accused could come in contact of hardened and criminals in case he was released on bail or would be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶13

In view of the above, this is found to be a fit case for grant of bail. The revision deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of Juvenile Justice Board dated 29.08.2018 as well as order dated 27.02.2019 of the appellate court, are set aside.

¶14

Let the Juvenile revisionist- Rajkumar (Minor) be released on bail on his father Sri Pyare Lal furnishing a personal bond of Rs.one lac and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board on furnishing an undertaking that he shall not allow the revisionist to come in association with any hardened criminal and shall take care of his education and well being 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.

¶15

Order Date :- 24.7.2019 AU

Rajkumar (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar (Minor) 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babloo Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Javed Akhtar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bablie Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Babloo Vs State of U.P.

Ishwari Prasad Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Tejpal @ Saleem Vs State of U.P.