Allowed

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

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2022CRLR/1526/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal revision by a juvenile against orders of JJB and Sessions Judge declining bail. The court set aside the impugned orders, finding lack of material and arbitrary reasoning, and granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; orders of JJB and Additional District and Sessions Judge set aside; juvenile released on bail upon furnishing sureties and undertaking.

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

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1526 of 2022 Revisionist :- Juvenile (X) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjay Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State of U.P.

¶5

This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat and further challenging the order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Court No. 13, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Appeal No. 68/2021 affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board declining bail to the juvenile in criminal case arising out of Case Crime No. 0624 of 2020 under Section 377 IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Mangalpur, DistrictKanpur Dehat.

¶6

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.

¶7

As per prosecution case, a minor aged 10 years was put to unnatural sexual assault by the juvenile, who disclosed this incident to his mother. A FIR was lodged by the mother of the victim, being Case Crime No. 0624 of 2020 under Section 377 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act and investigation commenced. The victim was medically examined; the statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim as well as some of the witnesses were recorded and chargesheet against the named accused persons was filed. Finding the accused a minor, the matter was brought before the Juvenile Justice Board where the age determination inquiry took place and the accused was found aged 16 years 2 months and 27 days on the date of the occurrence. The guardian of the juvenile moved a bail application before the Juvenile Justice Board, which was dismissed. The appeal filed against the aforesaid order was also dismissed. Now, the juvenile through his guardian/father is before this Court under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act,

¶8

2015.

¶9

Following facts are not disputed that in the FIR lodged by the mother of the victim, the juvenile was named as having committed the offence under Section 377 IPC with a minor child aged 8 years; in his statement the victim did not name the present juvenile as the assailant instead he named another person named Faizan having committed the offence. Admittedly, in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., recorded before the Magistrate, the victim again named another person 'Faizan', as the culprit and not the juvenile. However, at later stage of the investigation, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., for the second time, in which, the victim changed the version and named the present juvenile. This is not disputed that no statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was ever recorded the second time. This fact could not be refuted by the State that the investigating officer gave priority to the second statement of the victim over the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate and filed a chargesheet. It is not disputed that the juvenile is in observation home since 09.11.2020 i.e., for over 2 years now.

¶10

I went through the impugned orders. In a very brief order, the Juvenile Justice Board without analysis of any material before it gave an opinion that the juvenile did not deserve to be released on bail. The appellate Court took into consideration the nature of allegations as well as the suggestions and observations of the DPO for declining bail to the juvenile. In my view, there has not been any real material before the court concerned for drawing inference that if released, the juvenile may come in association with any criminal or that he may get exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger and that his release may defeat the ends of justice. There was absolutely no discussion on the three exceptions applicable where the bail to the juvenile can be declined. Moreover, these facts cannot simply skipped over that from the evidence collected the involvement of the accused in the crime is not free from doubt and that no external or internal injury or any sign of use of force was found. He is in observation home since about 2 years now. It may also be noted that even if the juvenile stands convicted, the maximum period of detention he can be awarded is 3 years and he has already been in detention for 2/3 rd period of the maximum period.

¶11

In view of the above, the revision is allowed . The judgment and order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Court No. 13, Kanpur Dehat and order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat, are hereby set aside .

¶12

Let the revisionist, minor "X' through his guardian/father be released on bail in Case Crime No. 0624 of 2020 under Section 377 IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Mangalpur, District-Kanpur Dehat 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, Kanpur Dehat subject to the following conditions:

¶13

(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;

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, uninfluenced by any finding or observation whatsoever in this order.

¶17

Order Date :- 17.11.2022 Vik/-

¶18

Digitally signed by VIKRAM GUPTA Date: 2022.11.17 16:46:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile (X) 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

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

Vijay Kumar @ Maheshwari Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Minor 'X' Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Ramanand Nishad Vs State of U.P. and Another

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