Allowed

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

Allahabad HC4 Nov 2022CRLR/1275/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision challenged orders declining bail to a juvenile offender in a gang rape case. The court set aside the lower orders for ignoring legal mandates and insufficient material, granting bail with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Judgement and orders declining bail set aside; juvenile released on bail with personal bond and two sureties.

X(Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1275 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- X(Minor) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rakesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State of U.P.

¶6

This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 20.11.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh and further challenging the order dated 14.03.2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, POCSO, Court No. 2, Aligarh in Criminal Appeal No. 135/2021 affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board declining bail to the juvenile in criminal case arising out of Case Crime No. 341 of 2021, under Sections 376-D, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Atrauli, District-Aligarh.

¶7

It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the impugned orders have been passed ignoring the principles of law, as applicable in the matters relating to bail to the juvenile and further ignoring the mandate of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015; the courts below have passed the impugned orders in an arbitrary manner and have drawn conclusions without having sufficient material before them.

¶8

As per the FIR lodged by the victim herself when she had gone to collect fodder for domestic animals, two named persons and two unknown persons caught her and forcibly sexually assaulted her and committed gang rape. On her screams, number of persons came and rescued her. The accused persons threatened that she will loose her life if the matter is brought in the knowledge of the police. On the basis of the FIR to this effect, the investigation commenced. In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she corroborated the version of the FIR, however, when questioned, she added that she cannot identify the witnesses, who came to rescue her on her cries. She also feigned ignorance about the two unknown persons, mentioned in the FIR. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she narrated the same story, however, she added the fact that the accused persons banged her head against a tree, therefore, she became unconscious; and that therefore she did not know how she reached her house. In the same statement under Section 164

¶9

Cr.P.C., she stated that she had passed Class 10th and is aged 15 years.

¶10

This fact is not disputed that on her medical examination, no external or internal injuries were found on her person and that nothing adverse has been found in pathological report. These facts are also not disputed that in the age determination inquiry of the juvenile, he was found 17 years 05 months and 25 days.

¶11

My attention has been specifically drawn to the social investigation report which said that behavior of the boy towards his classmates and others is good.

¶12

It is vehemently argued that in this case, that the juvenile has been falsely implicated in a motivated manner and he is in observation home since 17.08.2021 and that almost a year has been elapsed since then. It is also stated that he was a regular and genuine student of Intermediate and his studies have been interrupted by his sudden arrest. It is further stated that the juvenile has no criminal history.

¶13

I went through the impugned orders. It appears that the Juvenile Justice Board, in its order dated 20.11.2021, has in fact not given any reason for drawing a conclusion, bringing the case within the exceptions as given in proviso to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act for declining bail. I went through the order of the appellate Court. The appellate Court has placed reliance on the medical report observing that there was an injury on her private parts, however, the injury mentioned by the Doctor in medical report clearly shows it was an old healed tear. The supplementary medical report clearly shows that there has not been any injury whatsoever or sign of use of force or forcible penetration of vagina, there was nothing in the pathological report of the vaginal smear as well. In may view, the appellate Court wrongly mentioned the presence of the injury on the private parts. It also appears that the appellate Court did a selective reading of the social investigation report for declining the bail to the juvenile. In my view, the impugned orders have been passed in disregard of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act and the principles of law, applicable in the matters of bail to the juvenile, hence, impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶14

In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 14.03.2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, POCSO, Court No. 2, Aligarh and order dated 20.11.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh, are hereby set aside.

¶15

Let the revisionist, minor "X' through his Guardian/Father Jameel Khan R/o Village Ganiyawali, Police Station Atrauli, District-Aligarh be released on bail in Case Crime No. 341 of 2021, under Sections 376-D, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Atrauli, District-Aligarh upon his guardian furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh subject to the following conditions:

¶16

(i) that the guardian 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 guardian 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 :- 4.11.2022

¶20

Asha

¶21

Digitally signed by ASHA Date: 2022.11.04 16:05:27 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

X(Minor) 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

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

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

Anil Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Juvenile -X Vs State of U.P. and Another

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