Allowed

Jitendra Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Dec 2021CRLR/2642/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside orders rejecting bail for a juvenile appellant and approving an appeal in a POCSO case. The court held that since the juvenile had no criminal history, the victim was likely 18 years old, and evidence showed no enticement, the courts below erred in refusing bail under the Juvenile Justice Act.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions against tampering and ensuring court presence.

Jitendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2642 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Jitendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri B.K. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶6

The present revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 10.02.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh, whereby the bail application of the revisionist has been rejected as well as against the judgment and order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act) Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 103 of 2018, under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Rani Ki Sarai, District Azamgarh, whereby the appellate court has also rejected the appeal of the revisionist and affirmed the order of Juvenile Justice Board.

¶7

As per office report dated 15.12.2021, notice has been served personally upon opposite party no.2, despite that no one is present on behalf of opposite party no.2.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is juvenile, but the Juvenile Justice Board as well as appellate court without application of mind and against the provisions of Section 12 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 wrongly rejected the bail applications of the revisionist. He further contended that the

¶9

revisionist was not named in the FIR and when the statements of prosecutrix/victim were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., then she did not state anything against the revisionist and in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. victim further stated that she was in love with the revisionist and she on her own went along with the revisionist. She also stated that on 27.08.2018, she performed marriage with revisionist and after marriage, they were living as husband and wife. Learned counsel for the revisionist further contended that although the age of the victim was mentioned in the FIR as 14 years, but the age of victim, as per the certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer concerned, is around 18 years, therefore, both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and revisionist is entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA contended that as per the Section 12 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the bail prayer of the juvenile may be dismissed in the interest of justice if the Court is of the view that juvenile should not be released on bail and present matter falls under this category, as minor girl has been enticed away by the revisionist and her consent is of no value in the eye of law.

¶11

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. Admittedly, the revisionist is juvenile and as per Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, a juvenile 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 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.

¶12

Therefore, as per Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, in following circumstances, the bail of juvenile can be refused:-

¶13

(i) when there are reasonable grounds for believing that his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or;

¶14

(ii) his release expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or;

¶15

(iii) his release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶16

In the present case, there is no material on record on the basis of which, it can be believed that the release of the revisionist, who is juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or his release expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and further as the statements of victim recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. shows that revisionist did not apply any force and he never enticed her and further report of Chief Medical Officer shows that the age of victim is about 18 years and revisionist is in jail since 27.10.2018 and there is no criminal history to his credit, therefore, in my view if revisionist be released on bail, then his release would not defeat the ends of justice. Both the courts below failed to properly examine Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 with the facts of the present case and Juvenile Justice Board wrongly dismissed the bail application of revisionist and similarly the lower appellate court also wrongly dismissed his appeal.

¶17

Therefore, both the impugned orders dated 10.02.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board in Case No. 17 of 2019 and order dated 27.08.2021 passed by lower appellate court in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2021 are hereby set aside.

¶18

Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed .

¶19

Let the revisionist Jitendra Yadav , involved in the aforesaid

¶20

case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶21

(i) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;

¶22

(ii) The revisionist through guardian shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;

¶23

(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

Order Date :- 20.12.2021 AK Pandey

Jitendra Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Yadav 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

Bhoora and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishal Madan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Rajni and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Radha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P..and Anothers

Abhishek Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P through Secretary Home and Another