Allowed

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

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2022CRLR/2728/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal revision challenging the rejection of bail for a juvenile accused under POCSO and IPC sections. Finding no substantive material to justify detention and noting the social report's concerns, the High Court granted bail on a personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the juvenile upon guardian furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties subject to conditions regarding criminal association and evidence tampering.

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. - 2728 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Juvenile X Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Pawan Giri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pawan Giri, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

2. Perused the record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pilibhit and further challenging the order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Pilibhit in Criminal Appeal No. 01/2022 affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board and declining bail to the juvenile in a matter arising out of Case Crime No.187 of 2021, under sections- 376-D, 323 I.P.C. and sections5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Bisalpur, District- Pilibhit.

¶8

As per prosecution case, father of the victim lodged an F.I.R. stating that his daughter, aged about 17 years, went out of the house to ease herself at about 12:30 in the night on 18.04.2021; suddenly two unknown persons and the present revisionist/minor and fourth one Lal Singh forcibly carried her away to a nearby school building and committed gang rape on her; she sustained a number of injuries and became unconscious; the accused persons escaped from that place leaving her alone; after attaining consciousness, she returned to her house and disclosed the incident; the statement of the victim was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she supported the version of the F.I.R.; her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded and she was medically examined in which no external or internal injury was found on her person; after completion of investigation, present revisionist and his companion Lal Singh were charge-sheeted; finding the revisionist a juvenile, he was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, where his bail application was rejected; the appeal filed on his behalf also came to be dismissed; now the revisionist is before this Court in criminal revision under section- 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

¶9

It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the impugned

¶10

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 proviso to 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; the very material fact which have come out during investigation have been altogether ignored by the courts below; the independent witnesses gave a very different side of the story; one of whom Dharam Pal (Gram Pradhan) clearly stated that the informant (father of the victim) wanted to marry of her daughter with the present revisionist but the same could not materialize; it has also come in the statements that the victim was seen having conversation with the accused side which was not approved of by members of the family, therefore the F.I.R. was lodged; it is also contended that the medical report completely belies the theory of the prosecution; had there been any gang rape and injuries were sustained by her, definitely same would have been shown in the medical report; infact, the true story is quite different from the prosecution case; moreover, the social investigation report mentions nothing adverse as far conduct and character of the juvenile is concerned; on the other hand, there is a suggestion from the District Probation Officer that there was no need to keep him detained in the background of the need of continuance of his studies and for his psychological development etc.

¶11

I went through the impugned orders; in my view, there has not been any real and substantive material before the courts below for drawing an inference that his release shall defeat the ends of justice or that there was probability that he may come in association with any known criminal, or that he may be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger; admittedly, the juvenile has no criminal history and no criminal tendencies; infact, the social investigation report suggests that his future has been jeopardized by his sudden apprehension in this case and that therefore he could not continue his studies in class-11th; the juvenile is in custody in a protection home since last one and a half years now.

¶12

In view of the above, the revision is allowed . The judgment and order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Pilibhit and order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pilibhit, are hereby set-aside .

¶13

Let the revisionist, Minor "X" through his Guardian/father- "Y" , R/o Village- Akbarganj Simra, Police Station- Bisalpur, District- Pilibhit be released on bail in Case

¶14

Crime No.187 of 2021, under sections- 376-D, 323 I.P.C. and sections- 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Bisalpur, DistrictPilibhit 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, Pilibhit subject to the following conditions:

¶15

(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;

¶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 finding or observation made in this order.

¶19

Copy of the order be certified to the Juvenile Justice Board, Pilibhit/court concerned for immediate compliance.

¶20

Order Date :- 9.12.2022 Saif

¶21

Digitally signed by SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN Date: 2022.12.13 14:21:14 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

Deenbandhu Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Rajat Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Devendra Kumar @ Devendra Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

X Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another