Allowed

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

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2022CRLR/1722/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision challenging bail denial to a juvenile accused under POCSO and IPC. Bench allowed revision noting lack of material evidence and set aside lower orders, granting bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 17.02.2022 and 07.01.2022 set aside; petitioner released on bail via father attending surety undertaking and probation surveillance, conditionally.

X (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1722 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- X (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Sandeep Maniji Bakhshi,Amzad Rza Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Surendra Mohan Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 17.02.2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Siddharth Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.05 of 2022, by which the order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 7.01.2022 was affirmed and bail to the juvenile was declined in a matter arising out of Case Crime No.72 of 2021, under sections 342, 363, 366A, 376(D) IPC and 5 Cha/6 POCSO Act at Police Station Bhawaniganj, District Siddharth Nagar.

¶8

As per the allegations in the first information report three persons including this juvenile enticed away the sister of the informant aged about 16 years at 3 A.M. in the morning on 16.7.2021; the informant searched for her but could not know her whereabouts; after a gap of two days, on the basis of confidential information, the house of one of the named accused Salman was searched and door was caused to be opened by the police; the victim herself opened the door was found there alone. Her statement was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. in which she has stated that she was in relationship with Salman since last four years and that she herself called him to her house and exhorted him to take her away. She accompanied Salman and went to his aunt's house and stayed there for a day and then came back at Salman's house and stayed there; she categorically stated that she went with Salman out of her own free will and desire and established physical relations with him; in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C which was recorded after a gap of more than 10 days, she stated that four persons including the present juvenile and Salman took her away forcibly and confined her at an unknown place locking her from outside; one of them Salman sexually assaulted her; she was medically examined; no internal or external injury was found on her person; and was found aged about 19 years as per report of Chief Medical Officer, Siddharth Nagar.

¶9

Finding the present revisionist a juvenile, the matter was brought before the Juvenile Justice Board; as per the educational certificate submitted on behalf of juvenile, he was aged about 16 years on the date of occurrence; the bail application on his behalf was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 7.01.2022; the appeal preferred against the order of the Juvenile Justice Board also came to be dismissed by the Children Court. Therefore, the revisionistjuvenile through his natural guardian/father came before this Court in criminal revision under section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

¶10

It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that besides not adhering to the broader principles of law applicable in the matters of bail to the juveniles and ignoring the mandate of section- 12(1) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court absolutely ignored the facts that there has not been any credible evidence against the present juvenile. Relevant fact like non-mentioning of his name in the statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the victim recorded two times on the same day and her a very clear statement that she had been in relationship of one Salman have been ignored. This fact has also been ignored that by subsequent improvement in the statement given by the witnesses, name of Juvenile has been dragged in to falsely implicate him with ulterior motive; it is further contended that no clear role has been assigned to him in this case; the accused is in detention since 7.12.2021 i.e. almost 11 months now.

¶11

I have perused the order of the Juvenile Justice Board and the order passed by the Appellate Court. I cannot but observe that there has not been any material to even remotely suggest that once he is released, he may be come in association with any known criminal or that he may get exposed to physical, moral or psychological danger; or that the ends of justice shall stand defeated. This fact cannot be outrightly ignored that his name was not mentioned in the statement given by victim herself under section 161 Cr.P.C and that the victim, who was found to be aged about 19 years stated that she has been in relationship with one Salman and she went with him out of her own free will and desire. Admitted facts relating to her recovery are also important to notice. This fact is not disputable that the juvenile had no criminal history and the social investigation report also did not contain any fact adverse to his release. It appears that the bail has been declined by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court only on the basis of his probable involvement in a crime of heinous nature while all the other facts and circumstances have been ignored. In my view, there has not been any material to draw the inferences as have been

¶12

drawn by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court. This fact can also not be ignored that the juvenile is in apprehension since 07.12.2021, i.e., about 1 years now.

¶13

In view of the above, present revision is allowed and the order dated 17.02.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Siddharth Nagar and order dated 07.01.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Siddharth Nagar are hereby set-aside .

¶14

Let the revisionist, Minor "X", through his natural guardian/father- "Y" , R/o Village- Sagar Rauja, Police Station- Bhawaniganj, District- Siddharth nagar be released on bail in Case Crime No.72 of 2021, under sections 342, 363, 366A, 376(D) IPC and 5 Cha/6 POCSO Act at Police Station Bhawaniganj, District Siddharth Nagar upon his father furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Shamli subject to the following conditions:

¶15

(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;

¶16

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

¶17

(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;

¶18

(iv) The District Probation Officer shall keep vigil on the activities of the juvenile and shall keep the Juvenile Justice Board informed in case he is found involved in any objectionable activity.

¶19

The trial court shall not be influenced by any finding or observation made in this order.

¶20

Order Date :- 22.11.2022 SFH

¶21

Digitally signed by SYED FAHIM HUSAIN Date: 2022.11.24 17:46:00 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

X (Minor) 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

Munneelal and 34 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra @ Virendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mr. X Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Minor X Vs State of U.P. and Another

Minor X through His Natural Guardian Father Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anand(Minor) Vs State of U.P through Secretary Home and 3 Others