Allowed

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

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2022CRLR/1757/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision challenging bail denial to a 14-year-old accused. It held that lower courts failed to consider material facts, notably the victim's conflicting statements and lack of injuries, and issued bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Juvenile released on bail via father furnishing personal bond with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions against association with criminals, tampering with evidence, or seeking adjournments.

X (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1757 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- X (Minor) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Jitendra Singh,Janardan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shyam Sunder Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Janardan Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Shyam Sunder Yadav, 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 25.01.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh and the order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2022 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.178 of 2021, under sections- 363, 366, 328, 376 I.P.C. and section- 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Mubarakpur, District- Azamgarh.

¶8

As per prosecution case, a minor daughter of informant was enticed away by the juvenile-accused when she was going to her school; the F.I.R. of the incident which allegedly took place on 14.09.2021 at about 9:00 am in the morning, was lodged on the next date at about 19:03 hours; next day i.e. 16.09.2021 on the basis of confidential information by police, the boy and the girl were intercepted when they were standing on a road crossing; they were apprehended, the boy was taken into custody and the statement of the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she stated as below:-

¶9

" ममददनननक 14.09.2021 ककअपननपडकसकनगननवकनरनदशदपपतवनददस अलददनवनसदनयनपपरनकनसनथसममधदमपबनरकपपरसनहहदरनबनदचलदगयद थद।हमदकननएकददसरनसनशनददकरननचनहतनथन, लनदकनघरवनलनवपपललस कनडरकनकनरणहमलकगवनपसआगएहह।हमदकननपदतपतनदककतरहरह रहनथन।ममदबननदकसदजकरदबनवकनअपनदसवनचछनसनबयननदनरहदह ह ।"

¶10

In a statement recorded under section 164 after a gap of about 10 days from the incident, the victim narrated a different story stating that it was the juvenile who carried her away forcibly and sexually assaulted her and that she was not acquainted with the accused. After observing formalities of the

¶11

investigation, a charge-sheet under sections- 363, 366, 328, 376 I.P.C. and section- 3/4 POCSO Act was filed.

¶12

Finding the accused a juvenile, he was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, where in an age determination inquiry he was found aged only 14 years and 6 months on the date of occurrence; in the medical examination of the victim, no external or internal injury was found on her person; as per opinion of Chief Medical Officer, she was aged about 18 years on the date of incident.

¶13

It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that besides ignoring the mandate of Section-12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 certain very material facts were ignored by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court, viz. that lack of any injury on the person of victim to belie the prosecution case and that the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was given by the victim as a result of tutoring by the members of the family and other interested persons; in the District Probation Officer's report, nothing negative about his character or conduct was observed; the report also suggested that there has been a love relationship between the victim and the accused and that this fact gives a different colour to the whole episode and criminality cannot be attached to such act.

¶14

I went through the order of the Juvenile Justice Board; it appears that the Juvenile Justice Board simply declined the bail to the juvenile without discussing any material before it. I also went through the order of the appellate court; the appellate court concurred with the ultimate conclusion reached by the Juvenile Justice Board; however, it appears that no sufficient material was before it to arrive at the inferences which have been drawn by the appellate court to affirm the conclusion drawn by the Juvenile Justice Board.

¶15

This is not disputed that the girl gave a statement before the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the nature which can be categorized as exoneration of the accused; at the later stage of the investigation, the version as given by the victim was at variance with the earlier version given by her and imputed allegation of forceful sexual assault by him. It is argued that in view of whole of the circumstances of the case, the version as given in the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be relied upon. These facts are also not disputed that as per papers on record, the victim girl was found to be aged 18 years and the juvenile-accused was found to be aged merely 14 years and 6 months; the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 relating to a juvenile between 16-18 years obviously do not apply in this case; the District Probation Officer's report appears innocuous

¶16

and does not mention any negative fact about the juvenile so as to bring this case within the scope of proviso to Section- 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 for declining bail to him; the juvenile has no criminal history and has no criminal antecedents and he is in detention since 21.09.2021, i.e., about more than a year now.

¶17

In view of the above, present revision is allowed and the order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Azamgarh and dated 25.01.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh are hereby set-aside .

¶18

Let the revisionist, Minor "X", through his natural guardian/father- "Y" , R/o Mohalla Chaksikathi, Police Station- Mubarakpur, District- Azamgarh be released on bail in Case Crime No.178 of 2021, under sections- 363, 366, 328, 376 I.P.C. and section- 3/4 POCSO Act, Police StationMubarakpur, District- Azamgarh 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, Azamgarh subject to the following conditions:

¶19

(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;

¶20

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

¶21

(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;

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 2.12.2022 Saif

¶24

Digitally signed by SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN Date: 2022.12.02 17:22:31 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

X (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 Another

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

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

X Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and Another

Juvenile X Vs State of U.P. and Another

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