Allowed

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

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2022CRLR/2563/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision and set aside the lower courts rejection of bail for a juvenile facing POCSO charges. Directions were issued for immediate release on personal bonds with conditions regarding tampering with evidence and attending court.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 31.05.2022 aquashed; revolutionist released on personal bond with two sureties conditional on no tampering and presence at court.

X (Juvenile) Vs State of U.P through… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2563 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- X (Juvenile)

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Through Secretary Home And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Shweta Pandey,Punita Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This Criminal Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act') has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bijnor in Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2022 affirming the order dated 07.05.2022 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bijnor in Criminal Case No. 27 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 107 of 2022, under sections 377 IPC and section 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Chandpur, District Bijnor, whereby the bail application of the revisionist has been rejected.

¶8

The prosecution case in brief, is that mother of the victim lodged a first information report dated 02.03.2022 at 16.50 hours alleging inter alia therein that on 02.03.2022 at around 1.00 p.m. her son (the victim) aged about 9 years was taken by the revisionist with him to the field of sugarcane, where he committed unnatural misdeed with him.

¶9

On the basis of aforesaid information, FIR was registered against the revisionist and statements of the informant and victim were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. by the police during investigation. The victim was medically examined on the same day i.e. 02.03.2022. Thereafter, the statements of the informant and victim were recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned on 03.03.2022.

¶10

The revisionist was arrested and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board. An application under Section 12 of the Act has been filed before the Juvenile Justice Board for extending the benefit of bail. The learned Juvenile Justice Board considered the application and rejected the same vide order dated 07.05.2022 in Criminal Case No. 27 of 2022 arising out of Case

¶11

Crime No. 107 of 2022, under sections 377 IPC and section 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

¶12

Being aggrieved thereof, Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2022 was preferred before the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bijnor. The learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Bijnor affirmed the order of the Juvenile Justice Board and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision.

¶13

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is a juvenile, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, the bail application of a juvenile can only be refused if there appears to be a reasonable ground for believing that his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminals or expose him to moral danger. There is no likelihood that the revisionist would come into the contact of any known criminal. On ground of seriousness of the offence, the bail application cannot be rejected. The report of the D.P.O. is in favour of the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist also submitted that no mark of internal or genital injury seen on the body of the victim. The learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board and the learned Appellate Court had erroneously rejected the bail application.

¶14

Learned AGA has opposed prayer for bail but he could not demonstrate from the record that there existed any of the grounds on which bail application of a juvenile could be rejected keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

¶15

In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bijnor in Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2022 and the order dated 07.05.2022 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bijnor in Criminal Case No. 27 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 107 of 2022, under sections 377 IPC and section 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Chandpur, District Bijnor, are hereby set aside.

¶16

Let the revisionist X (Juvenile), involved in Case Crime No. Case Crime No. 107 of 2022, under sections 377 IPC and section 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Chandpur, District Bijnor, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) The revisionist through guardian shall 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;

¶19

(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

Order Date :- 19.11.2022

¶21

Sazia

¶22

Digitally signed by SAZIA AQUIL Date: 2022.11.21 17:07:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

X (Juvenile) v. State of U.P through Secretary Home 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

Roop Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ramwanti Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Shubha Kaushik Vs State of U.P. and Another

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Kailash Chandra and 10 Others

X (Juvenile) Vs State of U.P.

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