Allowed

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

Allahabad HC3 Nov 2022CRLR/1043/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court revision allowed Juvenile Justice Board and Appellate Court orders refusing bail to a minor. Court invoked Section 12(1) exceptions and granted bail, noting no evidence of force, age proximity, and lack of prior record.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; revisionist released on bail via personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions prohibiting association with criminals and tampering with evidence.

X (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1043 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- X (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ganesh Shanker Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ganesh Shanker Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This criminal revision has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 03.01.2022 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Basti and order dated 19.02.2022 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge Ananya court (POCSO Act) in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2022 (Nitish Srivastava vs. Manoj Soni and another) affirming the order of J. J. Board declining bail to the juvenile in case crime no.372 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366A and 376 I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Basti.

¶7

As per the allegations in the F.I.R. lodged by the informant, the juvenile used to reside in a house situated just opposite the house of informant. It is alleged that the juvenile enticed away the informant's daughter aged about 16 years on 18.10.2021 at about 5.00 P.M. in the evening. She was searched for in the near relations. However, she could not be found. It is also alleged that father of the abducted girl contacted the juvenile and he informed that the girl has returned her house but she did not return, therefore, the F.I.R. was lodged. The girl was recovered after a few days and her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she stated as below :-

¶8

" ममरमघरकमससमनमननततशशतवससतवनसमकसलडकसरहतसथसजजससमममरत जसनपहचसनकरतबएकससलसमहह।जजससमममरतफफनपरअकसरबसतचतत हहआकरततथतननततशममरमपससकसलकरकमहसइवमपरबबलसयसउसकमबसद अयफधयसगयसनफरअयफधयससमहमलफगटटमनसमगफवसचलमगयमगफवसममकरतब एकसपसहहमदफनफएककमरमममहतरहमउसकमबसदहमदफनफवसपसबसतत घरकमजलएआरहमथमतभतकरतबममडडघसटपहहचमहतथमनकपबजलसकमलफगफ नमहमदफनफकफपकडजलएममरतजनमनतजथ 05.02.2005 हहममरतउम लगभग 16 वररहह।महअपनमघरसम 18.10.2021 कफननततशशतवससतव S/O नवषणमशतवससतवकमससथघरसमगयतथत।ममयहबयसननबनसनकसत जफरजबरदसततकमदमरहतह ह तथसपढकरहसतसकरभतबनसरहतह ह ।"

¶9

In the subsequent statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she narrated the same story as stated by her earlier in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, she changed tone and tenor of her statement and added that the physical relations were made without her consent and that she could not return her house as she was threatened by accused. This fact is not disputed that no internal and external injury was found on her person and that during her medical examination she stated before the Board that she well acquainted with the accused and they used to talk to each other and she had gone with the juvenile on her own. This is also not disputed that as per her own statement, she was aged about 17 years on the date of occurrence and in the F.I.R. her age has been mentioned as 16 years by her own father. Undisputedly juvenile has been found aged 17 years nine month.

¶10

I went through social investigation report. Nothing objectionable has been noted by the D.P.O. in his report. In concluding para he observed that the juvenile has been under the influence of the company of other persons.

¶11

I went through the impugned orders it appears that J. J. Board made the nature of allegations as the sole ground for

¶12

declining bail. The appellate court after referring the provisions of proviso to Section 12 (1) of J. J. Act, 2015 found the case as one within the scope of exceptions as provided in the relevant provisions. In my view, there has not not been any real material before the court of J. J. Board or appellate court to draw an inference that his release will expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and that his release shall defeat ends of justice. The evidence as collected by I.O. and the statement of the witnesses give different colour to the whole incident. It may be noted that girl and boy belonged to same age group coupled with fact that no sign of use of force was found and that the juvenile is in incarceration since 03.10.2021 and he has no criminal history.

¶13

In view of the above, especially, in view of the period of incarceration already undergone, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 03.01.2022 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Basti and order dated 19.02.2022 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge Ananya court (POCSO Act) are hereby set aside.

¶14

Let the revisionist, minor "X' through his natural guardian/father Vishnu Srivastava, resident of Raitapar, behind Awadh Nursing Home, police station Kotwali, District Basti be released on bail in Case Crime No.372 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366A and 376 I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Basti upon his father Vishnu Srivastava furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahar subject to the following conditions:

¶15

(i) that the natural guardian/father Sri Vishnu Srivastava will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with

¶16

any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the father will ensure that the juvenile will not indulge in any criminal activity;

¶17

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

¶18

(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;

¶19

Order Date :- 3.11.2022

¶20

Asha

¶21

Digitally signed by ASHA Date: 2022.11.03 17:22:02 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

Minor 'X' Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Narendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Indrapal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

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

Smt. Rajkumari @ Doli Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others