Allowed

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

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2022CRLR/1586/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal revision against orders declining bail to a juvenile accused of abduction and kidnapping resulting in marriage. Finding no prima facie case and unjustified detention beyond one year, the High Court set aside the lower orders and granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed, impugned orders set aside, revisionist released on bail through natural guardian furnishing bond with sureties.

Juvenile -X Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1586 of 2022 Revisionist :- Juvenile -X Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Arun Kumar Tripathi,Navin Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Autar Verma

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Navin Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Sri Vivek Kumar Upadhyaya holding brief of Sri Ram Autar Verma, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶4

This criminal revision has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 02.03.2022 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Farrukhabad and order dated 22.03.2022 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2022 affirming the order of J. J. Board declining bail to the juvenile in case crime no.208 of 2021, under Sections 366 and 376 I.P.C., P.S. Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad.

¶5

As per prosecution case, a minor daughter of the informant was enticed and carried away by the present juvenile on a motorcycle at about 3.00 A.M. in the night of 23/24.09.2021. He was seen carrying away his daughter by one Ramkishan. When the informant protested and complained to juvenile's family members they began using foul words and threatened him that they will marry of her daughter with the juvenile. In the F.I.R. lodged by father of the victim it is also stated that village Pradhan kept on assuring him to bring back his daughter since last two days but he failed to rescue her. Therefore, he was lodging the F.I.R.. The girl was recovered and she was examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the I.O.. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. She was medically examined and found aged 18 years as per X-ray report. After investigation chargesheet was submitted against the juvenile. Rest of the three named in the F.I.R. were admittedly not chargesheeted.

¶6

It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the present juvenile has been falsely implicated in this case and that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. clearly stated that she went with him out of her own free will and desire and that she got married to him in a temple and has been living as husband and wife since then. On the basis of statements given under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. it is stated that no criminality can be attached to this episode as the victim was major and she was never abducted and kidnapped and she accompanied the juvenile and got married to him out of her own free will and desire and in that circumstances it is not at all justifiable to detain him in observation home. It is also brought to my notice that there are certain contradictions in the statements given by the witnesses and that social investigation report mentioned nothing which can be taken adverse to release of the juvenile.

¶7

I went through the submissions of both the sides and papers on record. Application of Section 12(1) of the J.J.Act pre supposes that prima facie case is made out against the accused on the basis of material collected during investigation. It is forcefully contended that in fact on the basis of

¶8

material collected prima facie no case is made out. The girl was found major and was found having no injury on her person. As per her own statement, she left her house out of her own volition. Admittedly, the juvenile is having no criminal history and no criminal tendencies. No probability has been expressed in social investigation report as to probable exposure to physical, moral and psychological danger or of any association with any criminal.

¶9

In my view, inferences drawn by the J. J. board and the appellate court finding the case as one falling within the proviso to Section 12(1) of the J. J. Act, 2015 are unsubstantiated as there was no material to draw such conclusion. Impugned orders are not sustainable. Moreover the juvenile is detained in protection home since 23.10.2021 i.e. last more than one year now.

¶10

In view of the above, especially, in view of the period of incarceration already undergone, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 02.03.2022 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Farrukhabad and order dated 22.03.2022 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad are hereby set aside.

¶11

Let the revisionist, minor "X' through his natural guardian/father Sunder Lal, resident of Gadha Khere, P.S. Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad, be released on bail in Case Crime No.208 of 2021, under Sections 366 and 376 I.P.C., P.S. Jahanganj, District Farrukhabad upon his father Sunder Lal furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Farrukhabad subject to the following conditions:

¶12

(i) that the natural guardian/father Sunder Lal 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;

¶13

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

¶14

(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;

¶15

(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, Farrukhabad on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

¶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/J.J.Board 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. Order Date :- 19.12.2022/Asha

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Smt. Renu Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

X Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

X Vs State of U.P.

X (Minor) Vs State of Up