Allowed

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

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2022CRLR/1973/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the High Court allowed the plea of a 15-year-old minor accused of abduction and sexual favor. Finding no material to justify denial of bail under Section 12(1), the Court set aside the rejection of bail orders by lower courts and granted bail on personal bond.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 08.04.2022 and 25.04.2022 were set aside; revisionist released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and undertaking specified conditions.

X (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1973 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- X (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Dinesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist, Ms. Shaheen Ansari, Advocate holding brief of Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan, 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 08.04.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Shamli and the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Shamli in Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2022 by the 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.921 of 2017, under sections- 376D, 363, 506, 34 I.P.C. and sections- 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kairana, District- Shamli.

¶8

As per prosecution case, three persons of the locality including the present juvenile abducted, by extending threat to her life showing a country-made pistol, the minor daughter of the informant on 17.08.2017 at about 11:00 pm from his (informant's) house; at that time, his wife was present; she (his wife) was administered some intoxicating substance by the victim at the behest of the named accused persons; when she became unconscious, his daughter was carried of to the house of Sunil Mehkar son of Mehkar and was gang raped by them; they left her to her house at about 3:00 am in the morning. The F.I.R. was lodged by father of the victim next day when he returned from outside. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that his daughter was threatened of making viral a video made of her. On the basis of this, an F.I.R. being Case Crime No.921 of 2017, under sections- 376D, 328, 506 I.P.C. and sections- 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kairana, District- Shamli was registered and investigated upon; the medical examination of the victim was conducted; her statements under sections 161 and 164 were recorded; the juvenile was apprehended, detained and was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, wherein

¶9

his application for bail was rejected; the appeal filed on his behalf through his natural guardian was dismissed by the appellate court. Now, the revisionist is before this Court in criminal revision filed under section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

¶10

It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that there was no material before the courts below for arriving at the inference that his release will defeat the ends of justice and that he may face physical danger from the victim's family; the bail to the juvenile has been declined as if he was being held guilty. The appellate court simply believed the story as given by the prosecution without application of mind; the present juvenile has been assigned the role of accompanying main accused Sunil Kumar and that in the statement given under section 164 Cr.P.C. by the victim clearly demonstrates that no allegation of assaulting the victim sexually has been imputed against present juvenile; all the allegations largely are against the co-accused Sunil. It is said that the victim has been in relationship with one Sunil and that the present juvenile had a very minor role to play which was different from the main accused, if prosecution story is believed as it is.

¶11

I went through the social investigation report; there is not a single fact which can be taken to be against the release of the applicant on bail; the report shows that he comes from a weak socio-economic strata of the society. The opinion of the Probation Officer points in a different direction. Admittedly, the juvenile is merely 15 years old and in case he is convicted of any offence, the maximum punishment permissible under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is detention in a juvenile protection home for three years only and undisputedly, he has been in detention since 21.03.2021, i.e., he has already undergone more than 50% of the maximum period of detention; he has no criminal history and no criminal antecedents. In my view, there was no material on record before the courts below to arrive at the conclusion bringing the case within the confines of proviso to Section- 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

¶12

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 25.04.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Shamli and dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Shamli are hereby set-aside.

¶13

Let the revisionist, Minor "X", through his natural guardian/father- "Y" , R/o Mohalla- Aalkalan Kasba, Police Station- Kairana, District- Shamli be released on bail in Case

¶14

Crime No.921 of 2017, under sections- 376D, 363, 506, 34 I.P.C. and sections- 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kairana, District- Shamli 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

The trial court shall not be influenced by any of the findings or observations made in this order.

¶19

Copy of this order be certified to the Juvenile Justice Board/court concerned immediately.

¶20

Order Date :- 19.12.2022 Saif

¶21

Digitally signed by SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN Date: 2022.12.19 17:30:13 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

Cases cited

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 Vs State of U.P.

X (Minor) Vs State of Up

Juvenile -X Vs State of U.P. and Another