Allowed

Ashish (Minor) v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2021CRLR/338/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision filed by a juvenile under Section 377 IPC and POCSO Act, the High Court granted bail. The court noted the revisionist endured nearly a year of detention and found medical evidence contradicted the FIR allegations, holding that orders denying bail could not be sustained.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders denying bail by Juvenile Justice Board and Sessions Court were quashed; revisionist released on bail with undertaking and two sureties.

Ashish (Minor) Vs State of Up and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 338 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Ashish (Minor) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Syed Irfan Ali,Mohd Naushad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Syed Irfan Ali, learned counsel for revisionist and learned AGA for State.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

This Criminal Revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2005 has been filed by revisionist-Ashish challenging order dated 08.12.2020 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Jalaun Auriiya in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2020 (Ashish Kumar vs. State) arising out of order dated 09.10.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Jalaun Auriya, in Case No. 09 of 2020 (State vs. Ashish) arising out of Case Crime No. 271 of 2020 under Section 377 IPC and Section 5m/6 POCSO Act, Police Station-Kotwali Auriya, District-Jalaun, whereby revisionist, who is a juvenile has been denied bail.

¶8

Notice was issued to opposite party no.2 vide order dated 08.02.2021. Pursuant to order dated 08.02.2021, concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate has submitted a report which is on record stating therein that notice of this Revision has been served upon husband of opposite party no.2. However in spite of service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2.

¶9

Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 29.03.2020, a delayed FIR dated 02.04.2020 was lodged by Opposite party-2, Smt. Komal Kumari and was registered as Case Crime No. 271 of 2020j under Section 377 IPC and Section 5m/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali, Auraiya, District Jalaun. In the aforesaid FIR, revisionistAshish has been nominated as solitary named accused. As per prosecution story as unfolded in FIR, allegation regarding commission of sexual assault by revisionist upon prosecutrix has been made.

¶10

Subsequent to aforesaid FIR, statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein prosecutrix has

¶11

supported the prosecution case as mentioned in FIR. Prosecutrix was medically examined Applicant was declared a juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 18.09.2020. Applicant who was taken into custody on 26.06.2020, applied for bail before Juvenile Justice Board, which was rejected vide order dated 09.10.2020. Being aggrieved, he filed an appeal, which was also dismissed vide order dated 08.12.2020.

¶12

Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid order, revisionist has now come before this Court by means of present criminal revision.

¶13

Learned counsel for revisionist contends that revisionist is a juvenile and has been declared as such vide order dated 18.09.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board. Age of revisionist on date of occurrence was 14 years 04 months. Juvenile is under detention since 20.06.2020. As such on date revisionist has undergone more than one year of incarceration. He further contends that medical evidence does not support the prosecution story. Considering age of revisionist and also the period of incarceration undergone, revisionist is liable to be enlarged on bail. On the aforesaid factual and legal premise, it is urged that present Criminal Revision is liable to be allowed and the revisionist is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed this Criminal Revision. However, he could not dispute the submissions urged by learned counsel for revisionist as well as facts noted above.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned AGA for the State and upon perusal of record, Court finds that revisionist, who is a child in conflict with law has been under detention since 26.06.2020 as such revisionist has undergone about one year of incarceration. Medical evidence which is on record as Annexure-5 to the affidavit does not support the prosecution story as unfolded in FIR. In view of aforesaid, orders impugned in present Revision whereby revisionist has been denied bail cannot be sustained.

¶16

Accordingly, present criminal revision succeeds and is liable to be allowed. Impugned orders dated 09.10.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Jalaun Auriya in Case No. 09 of 2020 ( State vs. Ashish) arising out of Case Crime No. 271 of 2020, under Section 377 IPC and Section 5m/6, POCSO Act as well as order dated 08.12.2020 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2020 (Ashish Kumar vs. State) are hereby quashed. Revision is allowed.

¶17

Let the revisionist-applicant, named above, be released on bail

¶18

in this case on furnishing an undertaking by guardian father that he will take proper care over the revisionist-applicant and he will not allow him to go in the company of known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and he will also file a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

¶19

Order Date :- 19.7.2021 Ashish Pd.

Ashish (Minor) v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish (Minor) v. State of Up 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Shakir @ Shakir Ali and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Indira Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Man Singh @ Man Singh Baghel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Johari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rijwan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Vidhya Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another