Allowed

Jatin Kumar Thru. His Mother Suneeta v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2021/9/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court set aside the order denying bail to the petitioner in a POCSO and IPC case. The court held that the trial and victim's statement recording were delayed contrary to Section 35 of the POCSO Act, and granted bail due to identical role of other co-accused already on bail.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 05.12.2020 and 22.10.2020 were set aside, and the revisionist was released on bail on a personal bond and two sureties.

Jatin Kumar Thru. His Mother Suneeta Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 9 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Jatin Kumar Thru. His Mother Suneeta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.

¶4

Counsel for Revisionist :- Sushil Prakash Pandey,Atul Kumar Singh Gaur,Taufeeq Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present criminal revision has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 05.12.2020 passed by Special Judge, Court No.44, Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2020 (Jatin Kumar vs. State of U.P.) and the order dated 22.10.2020 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Barabanki in Case Crime No.567 of 2020, under Sections 376D I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwalinagar, District Barabanki, along with the further prayer to release the revisionist on bail in the aforesaid case crime.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist was falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer and in the ossification test, age of the prosecutrix is found 17 years. He further submitted that Juvenile Justice Board rejected the bail application of the applicant in the most mechanical manner without considering the D.P.O. report, as in the aforesaid report it is observed by District Probationary Officer that the revisionist is having social nature and he does not have any criminal antecedent, and without any evidence presumption was made that deterioration in activities of the

¶9

revisionist cannot be denied. He further submitted that learned Juvenile Justice Board also failed to consider the provisions of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, and the appeal filed by the revisionist was also rejected in the most mechanical manner by the appellate court. He further submitted that the revisionist is in jail since 17.08.2020 and till today, the statement of prosecutrix has not been recorded, and as per Section 35 of POCSO Act, it is obligatory on the part of the court below to conclude the trial within 1 year from the date of taking of cognizance of offence and statement of the victim is to be recorded within one month from the date of taking of cognizance of offence. He further submitted that co-accused Amit Kumar Bansal, having identical role, has already been granted bail in Bail No.864 of 2021 on 23.02.2021 (photocopy of the bail order provided by learned counsel for the revisionist is taken on record).

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the revisionist and submitted that during the course of evidence, the statement of victim was recorded and she supported the prosecution version, but he does not dispute this fact that the applicant is in jail since 17.08.2020 and the trial is pending till today and the co-accused Amit Kumar Bansal, having identical role, has already been granted bail by this Court.

¶11

Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the order of Juvenile Justice Board as well as appellate court and other enclosures annexed with the revision including the statement of D.P.O. report etc., it is evident that co-accused Amit Kumar Bansal, having identical role, has already been granted bail by this Court, and as per the provision of Section 35 of POCSO Act, trial has to be concluded within one year from the date of taking of cognizance of offence and the

¶12

statement of the victim is to be recorded within one month from the date of taking offence, but the same has not been concluded, therefore, I am of the view that order of juvenile justice board as well as appellate court are liable to be set aside and the revisionist is entitled to get bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the application for bail is allowed and the order dated 05.12.2020 passed by Special Judge, Court No.44, Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2020 (Jatin Kumar vs. State of U.P.) and the order dated 22.10.2020 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Barabanki in Case Crime No.567 of 2020, under Sections 376D I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwalinagar, District Barabanki, are hereby set aside.

¶14

Let the revisionist - Jatin Kumar - be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶15

(1) Revisionist will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

(2) Revisionist will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court.

¶17

(3) Revisionist shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶18

(4) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶19

(5) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self

¶20

attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶21

(6) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶22

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶23

Order Date :- 10.2.2022

¶24

S. Shivhare

¶25

Digitally signed by SHASHANK SHIVHARE Date: 2022.02.10 17:40:19 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jatin Kumar Thru. His Mother Suneeta v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jatin Kumar Thru. His Mother Suneeta v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Rahul Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Jawahar Lal @ Jawahar Lal Jalajanticipatory Bail Vs Union of India Thru. C.B.I./a.C.B./Lucknow

Smt. Sushila Devi and Anr. Vs the State of U.P Thru Principal Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

Kumud Kumar Agarwal and Anr. Vs the State of U.P and Anr.