Allowed

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

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2022CRLR/1818/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the Allahabad High Court allowed bail to a 15-year-old juvenile accused of offences under IPC 354A, 377, 506 and POCSO. The court set aside orders declining bail, holding no material justified denial despite stringent provisions for juvenile offenders in heinous cases.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders setting aside bail were set aside; juvenile released on personal bond with two solvent sureties subject to conditions regarding contact with criminals and tampering with evidence.

Juvenile X Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1818 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Juvenile X Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Pankaj Kumar Asthana,A.K. Singh Solanki,Phool Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri P.K. Asthana, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 03.02.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur and the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No.16 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.564 of 2021, under sections354kha, 377, 506 I.P.C. and section- 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Fatehpur.

¶8

As per version in the F.I.R., a minor daughter of the informant, aged about 9 years, went to look for her sister who had not returned to her house; she went to the house of Ram Bhawan Maurya in the neighbourhood; her sister and another boy who were playing there, were turned out from the house by the juvenile-accused asking them to bring some eatable from the shop; finding the victim alone, he made an attempt of rape on her; she raised alarm. She disclosed the whole incident to her mother. The F.I.R about the incident which allegedly took place on 17.08.2021 at about 3:30 in the day, was lodged after a gap of about 9 days by her mother as Case Crime No.564 of 2021, under sections- 354B, 506 I.P.C. and section- 9/10 POCSO Act. The victim was brought for medical examination; however, the medical examination was not conducted as it was declined; in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., she stated that she was taken to a room and locked from inside and the juvenile attempted to commit rape; she stated that when her sister returned, the door was opened and she was able to come out; in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated as below:-

¶9

" पपडडततननबयतनडदयतडक 17 अगसतककहमतरनगतगवकनडपगससचतचतननहमतरनचढपममहतथ

¶10

डतलतथत।हममलगरहतथतलनडकनवकडनकतलननहहऔरहममबकलनडकडकसपककबततनत नहह।मनरतनतमसकनतकपममयरहहमम 9 सतलककह ह 01 ममपढतपह ह ।गतयतपपजतमगडदरमम सकसलममजततपह ह ।डपगससचतचसननहममकहतथतडकसपसनबततयततकमतरदमगन।मनरपबडपमममप कतलडकतछकटसऔरमनरपबहनईशतनपडपगससचतचसकनघरचलनगयनथन।हमखकजतनखकजतन गयनथन।इनहहननईशतनपऔरछकटसककडबसककटल न नभनजडदयतथतऔरडफरमनरनसतथऐसत डकयतथत। "

¶11

Her further statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded to clear out the ambiguity between the two previous statements, one given under section 161 Cr.P.C. and the other given under section 164 Cr.P.C.; after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under sections- 354B, 377, 506 I.P.C. and section- 5/6 POCSO Act; in her medical report, she was found to be aged about 10 years; the accused was found to be aged about 15 years; he was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board; his bail application was dismissed by the Juvenile Justice Board; the appeal filed on his behalf challenging the order of the Juvenile Justice Board also came to be dismissed; now, the juvenile is before this Court in criminal revision filed under section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

¶12

It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the broader principles of law applicable in the matters of bail to a juvenile as apparent from the provisions under section- 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 were given a complete go by, by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court. It is further contended that the juvenile was found to be aged only about 15 years, therefore the stringent provisions as applicable to a juvenile between 16-18 years of age in case of heinous offence has no application in the present case; the juvenile is having no criminal history or criminal tendencies; the District Probation Officer's report suggested that he is inclined towards studies and wanted to grow into an adult and have a career in Army; his abrupt apprehension in this case has disrupted his studies, which will ruin his future. It is also contended that the variance and discrepancies in the statements as given by the victim makes this case suspicious one. Therefore, he should be granted the benefit of bail in this case.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed this criminal revision. However, this is not disputed that the F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of about 9 days and that as far as the nature of the case is considered, the Investigation Officer was of opinion that the case came within sections- 354kha, 377, 506 I.P.C. and section5/6 POCSO Act; on the other hand, it is argued that matter infact did not fall under the above sections and if at all, it was an attempt to outrage the modesty of a woman; the medical report verifies his argument; this is also not disputed that the juvenile has no criminal history or criminal tendencies; as per

¶14

District Probation Officer's report, his studies have been disrupted for more than a year now; undisputedly, he is in custody since last one year.

¶15

In my view, there has not been any material before the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court for declining the bail taking support of proviso to Section-12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. Hence, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶16

In view of the above and taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, present revision is allowed and the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Fatehpur and dated 03.02.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur are hereby setaside .

¶17

Let the revisionist, Minor "X", through his natural guardian/father- "Y" , R/o Village- Bharhara, Police StationKotwali, District- Fatehpur be released on bail in Case Crime No.564 of 2021, under sections- 354kha, 377, 506 I.P.C. and section- 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kotwali, DistrictFatehpur 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, Fatehpur subject to the following conditions:

¶18

(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;

¶19

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

¶20

(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;

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 2.12.2022 Saif

¶23

Digitally signed by SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN Date: 2022.12.02 17:22:32 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

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

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