Allowed

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

Allahabad HC4 Nov 2022CRLR/1425/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision allowed; orders of Juvenile Justice Board and Sessions Judge declining bail set aside. Juvenile granted bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions regarding association and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the juvenile on personal bond with two sureties, subject to undertakings preventing contact with criminals and ensuring compliance with court dates.

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

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1425 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- X Juvenile (Minor) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bharat Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ram Babu Singh, Advocte holding brief of Sri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2/informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 11.02.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Badaun and the order dated 13.08.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Badaun in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2021 by which the order of the Juvenile Justice Board was affirmed and bail to the juvenile was declined in a matter arising out of Case Crime No.245 of 2020, under sections- 363, 366, 376(3) I.P.C. and section- 3/4 POCSO Act, Police StationUjhani, District- Badaun.

¶8

As per prosecution case, an F.I.R. was lodged by the mother of the victim to the effect that the juvenile, who used to work at brick-kiln with the family members of the informant at some place in Patiyala, Punjab, enticed her daughter on 06.04.2020. When this fact came into knowledge of the informant, she complained to the mother, sister and the uncle of the juvenile to bring back her daughter. Till now, they have been assuring of her return, however, she has not returned as yet. Therefore, she is compelled to lodged the F.I.R.

¶9

It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that, in their statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., the complainant and her husband supported the F.I.R. version. In her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that both of them used to work at the brick-kiln, therefore, she was friendly with the juvenile. Both of them went to a place at Hajratganj, where she lived with him for about four months. Thereafter, both of them started living in Delhi in a rented accommodation. In her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., she gave a different version of the incident saying that during the lock-down period, the juvenile, his mother and one unknown

¶10

woman came to her house in the night and made her smell some intoxicating material, then she became unconscious. The three persons took her away at a place in Delhi and kept her locked therein for about four months. She told that after 56 days of the incident, the juvenile himself brought her back to her house. Admittedly, no external or internal injury was found on her person in the medical examination and she was found aged about 16 years as per the age certificate granted by the Chief Medical Officer. Undisputedly, the juvenile was found aged about 15 years and 4 months in an age determination inquiry conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board. In the social investigation report as far as the socio-economic condition of the family of the juvenile is concerned, it was found ordinary and satisfactory. In the concluding para of the social investigation report, the District Probation Report speaks of a probable love affair between the two and that probably both of them eloped together out of their own free will.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed this criminal revision.

¶12

I went through the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court. In my view, there has not been any real and substantive material before the trial court as well as the appellate court to draw a conclusion that once he is released, he may get exposed to moral or psychological danger. It appears that the orders have been passed on the basis of presumptions only, ignoring the settled principles of law as applicable in the matters of bail to the juveniles.

¶13

In view of the fact that the juvenile is in observation home since for about more than two years and that the girl as well as the juvenile belonged to almost same age group and the nature of the statement as given by the victim herself bringing this case into a different light and the boy having no criminal history, present revisionist-juvenile is liable to be released on bail.

¶14

In view of the above, present revision is allowed and the order dated 13.08.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Badaun and dated 11.02.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Badaun are hereby set-aside .

¶15

Let the revisionist, Minor "X", through his natural guardian/father- "Y" , R/o Village- Naugawan, Police StationAliganj, District- Bareilly be released on bail in Case Crime No.245 of 2020, under sections- 363, 366, 376(3) I.P.C. and section- 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Ujhani, DistrictBadaun upon his father furnishing a personal bond with two

¶16

solvent sureties of his relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Badaun subject to the following conditions:

¶17

(i) that the natural guardian/father- "Y" 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 father 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

Order Date :- 4.11.2022 Saif

¶21

Digitally signed by SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN Date: 2022.11.04 15:48:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

X Juvenile (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(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