Allowed

Sachin @ Satyendra (Minor) Thru. His Brother Mr. Sarvesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2022/695/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision challenging the rejection of a bail application for a juvenile. The court held that the lower appellate order was unsustainable as the prosecution case relied on an uncredible statement by the prosecutrix, and the apprehension of contact with criminals lacked factual basis.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 20-06-2022 set aside. Accused enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to strict attendance conditions.

Sachin @ Satyendra (Minor) Thru. His Brother Mr. Sarvesh… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 695 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Sachin @ Satyendra (Minor) Thru. His Brother Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohammad Imaran,Mohd.Imran Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Srees Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Mohd. Imram Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Vipul Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Sri Srees Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.

¶7

Present revision under section 102 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been filed impugning the Judgment and Order dated 20-06-2022 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 12, Unnao in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2022 filed under section 101 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the Judgment and Order dated 21-05-2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Unnao rejecting the bail application of the accused-juvenile in Crime No. 313 of 2021, under section 376 AB I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station-Bihar, district-Unnao.

¶8

The F.I.R. in question was initially registered under section 354-Ka I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act. It was alleged that when the prosecutrix, aged around 15 years was coming back from Durga Pooja, the accused molested her and when the prosecutrix raised alarm, the accused ran away from the place of the incident.

¶9

The prosecutrix in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. reiterated the same allegations as mentioned in the F.I.R. However, in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix made some improvement and alleged the offence of committing rape by the accused-revisionist. The statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶10

does not inspire confidence.

¶11

It is not a case of the prosecution that the accused was carrying some weapon or threatened the prosecutirx before committing the offence of rape. At the first instance, the prosecution story does not appear to be convincing. The bail application of the accused-revisionist has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court after considering the report of the District Probation OfÏcer in which the District Probation OfÏcer had expressed an apprehension that if the accused-juvenile is enlarged on bail, there would be every likelihood of him to come in contact with the criminal or criminals. However, except this apprehension, there is nothing on record which would suggest that the accusedrevisionist would be in the company of a particular criminal or criminals. The accused-revisionist is in jail since 22-10-2021.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that the prosecutrix improved her case only in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., which is not credible, this court is of the view that order passed by the Appellate Court is unsustainable.

¶13

In view thereof, the present revision is allowed.

¶14

The impugned Judgment and Order dated 2006-2022 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 12, Unnao in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2022 filed under section 101 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the Judgment and Order dated 21-05-2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Unnao rejecting the bail application of the accused-juvenile in Crime No. 313 of 2021, under section 376 AB I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station-Bihar, district-Unnao, are set aside.

¶15

The accused-revisionist, Sachin @ Satyendra, is enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bail bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the

¶16

following conditions :-

¶17

(i) The accused-revisionist shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶18

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

¶19

(iii) In case, the accused-revisionist misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the accused-revisionist fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(iv) The accused-revisionist shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the accused-revisionist is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

Order Date :- 18.8.2022 AKS

¶22

Digitally signed by ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.08.22 11:05:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sachin @ Satyendra (Minor) Thru. His Brother Mr. Sarvesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin @ Satyendra (Minor) Thru. His Brother Mr. Sarvesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others

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

Shashi Kant Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Dukhraja Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Shyam Bihari Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Abhishek Bhansali Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Nirmala W/O Papu (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home