Allowed

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

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2022CRLR/1834/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the Allahabad High Court set aside bail rejection orders by the Juvenile Justice Board and Appellate Court. The Court held that with a delayed FIR, no medical injury, and a clean social report, a juvenile under 14 should be released on bail to family custody.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; orders of Juvenile Justice Board and Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge set aside; revisionist released on bail via father and sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1834 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Mr. Ex (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Munesh Kumar,Sushmita Raghav,Umesh Prasad Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Umesh Prasad Singh, 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 28.10.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur and the order dated 22.12.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2021 by which order of the Juvenile Justice Board was affirmed and bail to the juvenile was declined in a matter arising out of Case Crime No.523 of 2021, under section- 377 I.P.C. and section- 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Fatehpur.

¶8

As per prosecution case, victim (a boy aged about 6 years) was put to unnatural sexual assault by four boys, who took him away to a toilet in a Government school; he (victim) disclosed the incident to his mother after returning to his house; he was troubled by the pain caused as a result of the act of all the four boys; on disclosure by the victim, his mother complained to the parents of all the four boys, however they instead used foul words against the informant. The incident took place on 24.07.2021 and the F.I.R. was lodged after a gap of 16 days under sections- 377, 506 I.P.C. and section- 5/6 POCSO Act, 2012. The statement of the victim, her mother and some other witnesses were recorded; the victim was medically examined on 09.08.2021; no injury of any kind, external or internal, was found on his person.

¶9

Finding the present accused person a juvenile, he was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board; his bail application was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board; the appeal challenging the order of the Juvenile Justice Board was also came to be dismissed by the appellate court; now the juvenile is before this Court in Criminal Revision under section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

¶10

It is contended that besides ignoring the broader principles of law as applicable in the matters of bail to a juvenile and mandate of Section-12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 several other very relevant and material facts have altogether been ignored by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court while declining bail to him. In respect of this argument, my attention has been drawn that nothing adverse was found in the social investigation report, which could have prompted the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court for bringing the case within the restrictive confines of proviso to Section- 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. These facts were also ignored that the juvenile was found aged merely 13 years and 8 months on the date of occurrence and that the F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of 16 days and no injury was found on his person; juvenile was falsely implicated in this case out of some tiff between the victim with the boys, who at the relevant time, were playing with him; the victim's mother complained to the parents of the minor and the matter escalated resulting in lodging of an F.I.R. with false and concocted facts.

¶11

The fact as to lodging of delayed F.I.R. and not finding anything in the medical report as well as no adverse observation in the social investigation report have not been disputed by the side of the State. This is also not disputed that the juvenile was less than 14 years of age on the date of occurrence and that he is lodged in an observation home since more than one year and three months now.

¶12

I went through the impugned orders of the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court. I am of the view that there has not been any substantive material before the courts below for declining bail on the premise that the case came within the scope of the proviso to Section- 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. In my view, family custody is better over institutional custody for a boy of very immature understanding aged below 14 years.

¶13

In view of the above and taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, present revision is allowed and the order dated 22.12.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Fatehpur and dated 28.10.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur are hereby set-aside .

¶14

Let the revisionist, Minor "X", through his natural guardian/father- "Y" , R/o Gali No.7, Kaudarwa, Aladadpur, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Fatehpur be released on bail in Case Crime No.523 of 2021, under section- 377 I.P.C. and section- 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District-

¶15

Fatehpur 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:

¶16

(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;

¶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

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

¶20

Order Date :- 1.12.2022 Saif

¶21

Digitally signed by SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN Date: 2022.12.01 16:32:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Ex (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

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

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

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