Allowed

X (Minor) v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2022CRLR/1013/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision filed by a minor revisionist. It set aside the orders rejecting the criminal appeal against conviction and the bail application. The court held that user judicial discretion in rejecting bail was misplaced, particularly given the evidence suggesting the case fell within the exception under the Juvenile Justice Act, and released the minor on bail.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; orders rejecting appeal and bail application set aside; revisionist released on bail subject to bonds, sureties, and conditions.

X (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 92

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1013 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- X (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Mahendra Pratap,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent no.1. None appears on behalf of the informant-respondent no.4 despite sufficient service of notice.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed with the prayer to allow the present revision and set aside the order dated 21.01.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act (First), Room No.16, Gautam Budh Nagar, in Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2021 (State Vs. 'X' Juvenile), dismissing the appeal filed by the revisionist through his father and Order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gautam Budh Nagar, in Bail Application No.112 of 2021 (State Vs. 'X' Juvenile) rejecting the Bail Application filed by the revisionist through his father in Case Crime No.851 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376, IPC & 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Sector 49, Noida, District-Gautam Budh Nagar. Further prayer has been made to pass an interim order to enlarge the revisionist on bail and custody of the revisionistapplicant be given to the father of the revisionist in the aforesaid case crime.

¶8

It is contended on behalf the Juvenile boy that in this case an FIR was lodged by the informant against some unknown persons alleging that his two minor daughters (aged about 15 years and 14 years) were taken away from the house. It is contended that the informant, in his statement, could not disclose as to who is the real culprit. It is submitted that during investigation, the police has recovered both the victims, revisionist and co-accused Roshan Mishra on 02.08.2021 from the house of one Devendra Sharma situated at Sector 135, Noida and took them in his custody. After arrest, statements of the daughters of the informant were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 02.08.2021 wherein both the victims have stated that they were living with revisionist and co-accused Roshan Mishra on a rented accommodation as husband and wife. It is further submitted that after the recording the statement of the victims,

¶9

the police has sent both the victims to District Hospital, Noida for their medical examination, where they have refused to undergo for internal medical examination. The statements of the victims under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were also recorded where it is stated stated that they have gone out of the home along with revisionist and Roshan Mishra (co-accused) on her own free and sweet will and they have took their Aadhar Card with them. It is further submitted that in the matter, charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant and other co-accused Roshan Mishra. It is further submitted that the co-accused Roshan Mishra has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.03.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5459 of 2021. It is also contended that juvenile is a boy aged about 17 years 9 months and 15 days, as per academic records the date of birth of revisionist is 15.10.2003 and he has not been named in the F.I.R. It is submitted that the Juvenile has no criminal history to his credit and belongs to a family of labour class.

¶10

Learned AGA for the State has opposed this criminal revision.

¶11

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶12

In view of the above submission, it is crystal clear that both the victims have voluntarily gone out of their home along with revisionist and co-accused as they took their Aadhar Card while they were leaving their home.

¶13

From the perusal of material brought on record, it appears that Juvenile Justice Board has come to conclusion that the matter fell within exception as described in proviso to 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, on the basis of presumptions and conjunctures. Likewise, the learned appellate court below referred to several judgments of the Hon'ble Courts regarding non consideration of merits of the case in the matter of bail, however, in the end he, merely on the basis of gravity of the matter deemed it fit to reject the bail.

¶14

In view of the above, the revision is allowed . The judgment and order dated passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act (First), Room No.16, Gautam Budh Nagar, in Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2021 (State Vs. Amit Kumar), dismissing the appeal filed by the revisionist through his father and Order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gautam Budh Nagar, in Bail Application No.112 of 2021 (State Vs. 'X' Juvenile) rejecting the Bail Application filed by the revisionist through is father in Case Crime No.851 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376, IPC

¶15

& 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Sector 49, Noida, DistrictGautam Budh Nagar are hereby set aside.

¶16

Let the revisionist, "X (Juvenile)" through his natural guardian/father Pappu Prasad, resident of Mirachak, Bind, Nalanda, Bihar-803107, Presently resident of House of Chauhan, Near K.C.S. School, Village-Baraula, Police StationSector 49, Noida, District-Gautam Budh Nagar be released on bail in Case Crime No.851 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376, IPC & 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Sector 49, Noida, District-Gautam Budh Nagar upon his father Pappu Prasad furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of her relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Gautam Budh Nagar subject to the following conditions:

¶17

(i) That the natural guardian/father Pappu Prasad will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the mother will ensure that the juvenile will not indulge in any criminal activity;

¶18

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

¶19

(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall also 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;

¶20

(iv) The District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the revisionist and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Gautam Budh Nagar on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

¶21

Order Date :- 23.9.2022 SK Goswami

¶22

Digitally signed by SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI Date: 2022.09.30 18:02:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

X (Minor) v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

X (Minor) v. State of U.P. 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

State of U.P. Vs Om Prakash

MINAUAand Others Vs State of U.P.

Dhundha Vs State of U.P.

X (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mr.X(Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sarthak Keshari Vs State of U.P. and Another