Allowed

Minor X through His Natural Guardian Father v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2022CRLR/2127/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the criminal revision filed by a juvenile charged under IPC and POCSO sections. The court set aside lower court orders denying bail and granted bail subject to a personal bond and undertakings regarding contact with criminals and witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Release of the minor revisionist on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of relatives, subject to specific undertakings.

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

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2127 of 2021 Revisionist :- Minor 'X' Through His Natural Guardian Father Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Narendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶4

Learned counsel for the revisionist is directed to carry out necessary amendment for removing the name of juvenile and represent him symbolically to hide his identity during the course of the day.

¶5

The concerned section of the Registry is directed to correct the cause list and the caption of the case, as fed and shown on the official website and represent him as " Minor 'X' Through His Natural Guardian Father .

¶6

Heard Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State of U.P.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 28.05.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jhansi and further challenging the order dated 02.07.2021 passed by the Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Jhansi in Criminal Appeal No. 44/2021 affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board declining bail to the juvenile in criminal case arising out of Case Crime No. 338 of 2019 under Section 376, 506 IPC, Section 5/6 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Babeena, District-Jhansi.

¶8

As per prosecution case, a girl aged 16 years was gang raped by three persons including a juvenile named in the FIR when she was in the field taking care of her goats; The FIR came to be lodged by her uncle when the women folk suspected pregnancy; she was interrogated by them; she told that she was sexually assaulted by the juvenile and two of his associates when she was alone in the field about three months ago; they also prepared a video of the act and threatened her to make it viral in case she revealed the incident to anybody else; She was medically examined and no injury was found on her person, however, ultrasound revealed that she was gravid with foetus of about nine weeks; finding one of the persons named in the FIR juvenile, the matter was brought to the Juvenile Justice Board where an age determination inquiry took place and he was declared as juvenile aged 17 years 2 months on the date of the

¶9

occurrence. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the juvenile only.

¶10

In statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she stated that finding her alone in her field, she was dragged by them forcibly, beaten and sexually assaulted by juvenile and two of his companions and video film of the act was also prepared. It is stated by her that they threatened to make it viral; on this pretext, she was put to sexual assault several times afterwards also and that she did not disclose anything to his family members out of fear.

¶11

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. It is also contended on behalf of the revisionist that besides ignoring the mandate of proviso of Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, this aspect of the case that FIR was lodged after delay of three months, absence of injuries, the statement of the victim as well as the social investigation report wherein nothing adverse was found have been ignored.

¶12

My attention has also been drawn to the statements given by the witnesses during the trial, in which, it appears that for some reasons, the witnesses as well as the victim found it convenient not to support the prosecution case, not to name the juvenile as the culprit and to exonerate him.

¶13

Now the picture which emerges is that the victim-girl aged 16 years and the witnesses, who supported the prosecution version initially, have chosen not to support the prosecution case. The order of the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate Court is based on social investigation report wherein no criminal history or no criminal antecedents or tendencies were found. Despite the kind of report the D.P.O. submitted, the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate Court drew a conclusion that the case fell within the restrictive exceptions as provided in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. In my view, this is not the stage to look for and discuss the reasons behind giving hostile statements by the prosecution witnesses. And it will not be proper to draw any inference at this time based on such statements. At the same time, as for grant of bail is concerned, I take all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration and also the fact of absence of material to substantiate that in case the juvenile is

¶14

released on bail, he will get exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and that his release shall cause the ends of justice to be defeated. Moreover, this fact may also be considered that he is in detention since last 3 years i.e. 30.12.2019.

¶15

In view of all the above circumstances, the revision is allowed . The judgment and order dated 02.07.2021 passed by the Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Jhansi and order dated 28.05.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jhansi, are hereby set aside .

¶16

Let the revisionist, minor "X" through his guardian father be released on bail in Case Crime No. 338 of 2019 under Section 376, 506 IPC, Section 5/6 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Babeena, District-Jhansi 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, Jhansi subject to the following conditions:

¶17

(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;

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.11.2022 Vik/-

¶22

Note- Copy of the order be sent to concerned Section of the Registry for immediate compliance of direction given in Para-2 of the order.

¶23

Digitally signed by VIKRAM GUPTA Date: 2022.11.22 16:03:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Minor X through His Natural Guardian Father v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minor X through His Natural Guardian Father 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

Munneelal and 34 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra @ Virendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mr. X Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Minor X Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Anand(Minor) Vs State of U.P through Secretary Home and 3 Others