Allowed

Minor X through His Guardian/Father v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2022CRLR/1938/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision allowed the petition to set aside orders denying bail to a juvenile accused of sexual assault under IPC 376 and POCSO. The court found insufficient material to hold the juvenile with known criminals, noting delayed allegations and lack of physical injury to the victim. Bail is granted with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 08.03.2021 and 15.02.2021 set aside; juvenile released on personal bond with two solvent sureties and specific conditions.

Minor X through His Guardian/Father Vs State… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1938 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Minor 'X' Through His Guardian/Father Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajai Krishna Srivastava,Rajat Kumar Shukla,Santosh Kumar Singh,Sudhir Kumar Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

It appears that the revisionist has amended the title of the revision memo in compliance of previous order dated 11.10.2022. The concerned section of Registry is directed to remove the name of the revisionist-minor from the title of the revision as fed and shown in the data on official website and represent him as " Minor 'X' Through His Guardian/Father."

¶6

Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State of U.P.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 15.02.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mathura and further challenging the order dated 08.03.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Mathura in Criminal Appeal No. 16/2021 affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board declining bail to the juvenile in criminal case arising out of Case Crime No. 0853 of 2019 under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali, District-Mathura.

¶8

As per the prosecution story, an FIR was lodged by father of the victim stating therein that his daughter student of Class-9th was not willing to go for school for last several days; when they tried to ask for the reason, she told that some of the boys namely, Aryan and Aman have been bothering her and that those boys were pressuring her to do some indecent acts; it is also mentioned in the FIR that two of their sisters namely, Muskaan and Kajal took her nude photographs and on the threats of exploiting her on the basis of making viral those photographs, compelled her to establish physical relation with Aryan and Aman; on the basis of this FIR Case Crime No. 0853 of 2019 under Section354(c), 506 IPC and Sections 7/8 POCSO Act was registered and investigated upon; in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim repeated the same story as given in the FIR; in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded after a gap of certain period she added a fact that besides four person named in the FIR, one of their friends, the

¶9

present minor also contacted her on phone and asked her to come over and sexually assaulted her; later on, a charge-sheet was submitted against the present juvenile-revisionist under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act.

¶10

It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the impugned orders have been passed ignoring the principles of law, as applicable in the matters relating to bail to the juvenile and further ignoring the mandate of Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015; the courts below have passed the impugned orders in an arbitrary manner and have drawn conclusions without having sufficient material before them; these facts are altogether ignored that the present revisionist-juvenile was never named in the FIR; the witness including the victim in their statements, at initial stage, did not say a word against him, however, when her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, after a gap of 42 days, she alleged that the present minor-revisionist too was one of the person who sexually assaulted her and that it was him who called her to come over and that she went there on her own; these facts show that whatever happened, happened on the volition of the victim; the delayed response on her behalf in the case demonstrates that the story is different; the revisionist is having no criminal history and no criminal tendency and that he is in detention since last more than two years and that his apprehension and detention in this case has jeopardized his future as his studies have been disrupted.

¶11

I went through the impugned orders of the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court. In my view, there was not enough material to draw an inference that the juvenile will come in association of known criminal or his release may expose him to any physical, moral or psychological danger or his release may defeat the ends of justice. The victim has been found with no injuries on her person and no evidence of making video or taking photographs has been found. The facts added at the later stages of the investigation have en-roped this revisionist in this case which as per the contention of the revisionist, is an after thought and cannot be relied upon. The juvenile is found having no criminal history and no criminal tendencies. He is in detention in this case since 31.10.2020 i.e., more than two years have been elapsed.

¶12

In view of all the above facts and circumstances, the revision is allowed . The judgment and order dated 08.03.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Mathura and order dated 15.02.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mathura, are hereby set aside .

¶13

Let the revisionist, minor "X" through his guardian/father be released on bail in Case Crime No. 0853 of 2019 under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali, District-Mathura upon his guardian furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Mathura subject to the following conditions:

¶14

(i) that the guardian 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 guardian will ensure that the juvenile will not indulge in any criminal activity;

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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 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.

¶19

Order Date :- 19.12.2022 Vik/-

¶20

Note- Copy of the order be sent to concerned Section of the Registry for immediate compliance of direction given in Para-1 of the order.

¶21

Digitally signed by VIKRAM GUPTA Date: 2022.12.19 17:44:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Minor X through His Guardian/Father v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minor X through His Guardian/Father v. State of U.P.

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 (Juvenile) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Renu Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

X Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

X Vs State of U.P.

X (Minor) Vs State of Up