Allowed

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

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2022CRLR/2517/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision filed by a juvenile against bail rejections. The Court found the lower courts took a narrow view and lacked substantive material to deny bail under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and ordered the juvenile's release.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders declining bail were set aside, and the juvenile was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond with sureties and complying with specific conditions.

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. - 2517 of 2022 Revisionist :- Juvenile (X) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Manvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State of U.P. None responds for respondent no. 4-the informant.

¶5

This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur and further challenging the order dated 03.06.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No. 25/2022 affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board declining bail to the juvenile in criminal case arising out of Case Crime No. 128 of 2021 under Section 366, 376D, 307 IPC IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kalyanpur, District-Fatehpur.

¶6

As per prosecution case, the father of the minor girl lodged an FIR alleging that Sonu and present juvenile-revisionist and one unknown person forcibly took her daughter to jungle on a motorcycle on 30.06.2021 at about 10.30 pm in the night, when she had gone to ease herself in a nearby field; she was sexually assaulted by this juvenile and thereafter she was thrown in a well; on not finding the girl, her father searched for her and rescued her from the well; an FIR, Case Crime No. 0128 of 2021 under Sections 366, 376 and 307 IPC, was lodged naming this juvenile, his associate Sonu and one unknown person; the statement of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded; she was medically examined two times and after investigation, chargesheet under Sections 366, 376D, 307 IPC IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act was submitted; the minor was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board; his bail application was dismissed; the appeal filed on his behalf also came be to dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act); now the juvenile through his natural guardian/mother is before this Court under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

¶7

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; besides ignoring the above, certain very important indicators as demonstrated by the statement of the victim under Section 161 and corroborated by her medical examination have been altogether ignored. In fact from her evidence no case was made out against him. However, later on, when the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Magistrate after a gap of about 6 days, she narrated a story materially different from one given by her in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is argued that the revisionist has been falsely implicated as after thought for motivated reasons and nothing as alleged in the FIR ever happened. It

¶8

is further argued that if the girl would have been put to forcible sexual assault and dumped in a well, she would have sustained a number of serious injuries, however, the absence of injury on her person belies the case of the prosecution. It is further argued that there was nothing in the report of the DPO so as to draw any adverse inference for bringing the case within the purview of proviso to Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act.

¶9

I went through the order of the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the order of the appellate Court in the light of the submissions of the revisionist; it seems that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate Court were of the view that in case the juvenile is released on bail, the ends of justice shall stand defeated. In my opinion, a very narrow view of the above phrase has been taken by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate Court for declining bail to him. In fact there was nothing substantive to bring this case within the third part to proviso to Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The juvenile is in custody since 11.07.2021 i.e. about 1½ years have gone since his detention and that there is nothing in the social investigation report as to his conduct or character catching attention of the Court. It is revealed from the report that his studies were disrupted because of his apprehension in his case. Admittedly, the other co-accused namely, Sonu has been admitted to liberty of bail by a Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 47503 of 2021 by order dated 13.01.2022.

¶10

Considering all the above facts and circumstances, the revision is allowed . The judgment and order dated 03.06.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Fatehpur and order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur, are hereby set aside .

¶11

Let the revisionist, minor "X' through his guardian/mother be released on bail in Case Crime No. 128 of 2021 under Section 366, 376D, 307 IPC IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Kalyanpur, DistrictFatehpur upon his guardian furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of her relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur subject to the following conditions:

¶12

(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;

¶13

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

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.

¶16

Order Date :- 8.12.2022 Vik/-

¶17

Digitally signed by VIKRAM GUPTA Date: 2022.12.08 17:50:05 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

Nakul Pawar @ Vikrant Pawar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Awadhesh Kumar @ Manoj Vs Smt. Mamta Devi

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

Deenbandhu Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajat Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another