Allowed

Minor through Guardian and Mother Smt Sushila Devi v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2022CRLR/1620/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal revision against refusal of bail to a juvenile accused of carrying away a 16-year-old girl. The court set aside lower court orders declining bail, finding the JJ Board failed to discuss restrictive provisions under Section 12(1) of the JJ Act given the victim's statement and lack of physical injury.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and orders declining bail dated 15.01.2021 and 24.02.2021 are set aside. Revisionist granted bail on personal bond with two sureties under conditions.

Minor through Guardian and Mother Smt Sushila Devi Vs… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1620 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- X (Minor)

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Shivam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A,Jyoti Bhushan

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Shivam Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Jyoti Bhushan, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

It appears that name of the revisionist-juvenile has been disclosed in the memo of revision. This fault from the side of revisionist escaped detection by the Registry. The concerned officer of the registry is directed to delete the name of the revisionist-minor from the title of the revision as fed and shown in the data on website and represent him as "Minor through guardian & mother Smt. Sushila Devi".

¶8

This criminal revision has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 15.01.2021 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi and order dated 24.02.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), court no.3, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2021 (Sonu Rajbhar vs. State of U.P. and another) affirming the order of J. J. Board declining bail to the juvenile in case crime no.348 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act and 3(2)(v) S.C.&S.T. Act, P.S. Sigra, District Varanasi.

¶9

As per the prosecution case, minor daughter aged about 16 years of the informant, was enticed and carried of by the juvenile accused in the morning of 17.08.2020. F.I.R. naming him was lodged same day. Girl was traced out and she was medically examined. No external or internal injury was found on her person. As per opinion of C.M.O, she was aged between 15-16 years. In her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she stated that a day before the incident, an altercation ensued between her parents, her father had beaten her and she, out of anger left her house at 2.00 PM. in the morning without informing anybody else and went directly to juvenile; both of them went to Mirzapur by a bus where they stayed as husband and wife for about five days; she also told that she was acquainted with the juvenile by facebook chat. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she narrated same story with the significant addition that she was having love affair with the juvenile for the last two years and that she decided to elope with him out of her own volition. Marriage between them could not be formed as they had no place to stay. She categorically stated that she was not forced or misled by the accused -juvenile. The accused was apprehended and produced before the J.J.Board wherein age determination enquiry was conducted. He was

¶10

found aged 17 years and three months approximately. Social investigation was conducted; bail application presented on his behalf was refused; the appeal filed challenging the order of J.J.Board too was dismissed by the appellate court.

¶11

It is contended that besides ignoring the mandate of Section 12(1) of the J.J.Act, 2015 the J.J.Board ignored several very material facts relating to the incident. It is contended that the evidence on record prima facie constitutes no offence and that nothing was found in the medical report to bring this case under Section 376 I.P.C. or Section 3/4 POCSO Act. Moreover, social investigation report mentioned nothing adverse against the juvenile to justify refusal of bail.

¶12

I went through the impugned order in the light of the submissions of the revisionist. It appears that J.J.Board declined bail to the juvenile on single basis of report of D.P.O. without discussing factors which could have brought the case within proviso to Section 12(1) of the J.J. Act, 2015. The appellate court referred to several land mark judgement of High Court as well as Supreme Court. However, no material has been discussed in the order to substantiate the grounds for bringing the case within the restrictive domain of proviso to Section 12 (1) of J.J.Act,2015. This is not disputed that in this case the victim herself gave an exonerating statement in favour of the accused; the victim as well as the juvenile belonged to same age group between 15 to 17 years. The nature of the statement given by the victim gave another hue to the whole episode. In view of the above, it is argued by the revisionist that no criminality can be attached to the juvenile who is of quite immature understanding.

¶13

The social investigation report has supported the case of defence. Admittedly the juvenile has no criminal history. There is no material to suggest that in case he is released on bail, the ends of justice shall be defeated. Further there is no material to suggest that he may associate with persons of criminal antecedents or that he may be put to moral, physical or psychological danger.

¶14

In view of the above, especially, in view of the period of incarceration already undergone, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 15.01.2021 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi and order dated 24.02.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), court no.3, Varanasi are hereby set aside.

¶15

Let the revisionist, minor "X' through his natural guardian/mother Smt. Sushila Devi, resident of D 64/86 B-3 Madhopur, Chhitupur, P.S. Sigra, District Varanasi, be released on bail in Case Crime No.348 of 2020, Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC, 3/4 POCSO Act and 3(2)(v) S.C.&S.T. Act, P.S. Sigra, District Varanasi upon his mother Smt. Sushila Devi furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of her relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi subject to the following conditions:

¶16

(i) that the natural guardian/mother Smt. Sushila Devi 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 mother 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

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 1.12.2022

¶22

Asha

¶23

Note-copy of the order be sent to concerned office of the Registry for immediate compliance of direction given in para-2 of the order.

¶24

Digitally signed by ASHA Date: 2022.12.02 14:30:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Minor through Guardian and Mother Smt Sushila Devi v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minor through Guardian and Mother Smt Sushila Devi 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

Sevaram Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sheepu @ Neelesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

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

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

Lalit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others