Allowed

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

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2022CRLR/3123/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside bail refusal orders made by the Juvenile Justice Board and Sessions Judge, granting bail to a minor accused aged 17 years, 7 months in a POCSO case, citing lack of specific material to justify denial and presence of consensual elements.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and order of J.J. Board and Special Judge setting aside; Juvenile released on bail via father's bond with two sureties.

X (Juvenile) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3123 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- X (Juvenile) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Chandra Dutt,Chandra Prakash Pandey,Manoj Kumar Singh

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Chandra Dutt, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 17.06.2022 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Siddharth Nagar and order dated 14.07.2022 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Siddharth Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2022 affirming the order of J. J. Board declining bail to the juvenile in case crime no.59 of 2022, under Section 376 I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali Bansi, District Siddharth Nagar.

¶8

As per prosecution case, the victim of the offence herself lodged an F.I.R. alleging therein that she was in relationship with the 'X' present juvenile aged about 20 years. He used to visit her and they had physical relation between them in the month of May, 2021. He took her away to temple and put vermilion on her forehead showing that he has married her. She became pregnant. However, her pregnancy was terminated by administration of some medicine given by him to the victim. He again established physical relation with her in January, 2022 and thereafter went to Delhi. He asked her to join him in Delhi and thereafter she reached to railway station, New Delhi. In the copy of G.D. it is mentioned that the informant was found sitting alone at Delhi Railway Station and was approached by counsellor from Women Commission Delhi and was sent for medical examination. A zero F.I.R. was registered at police station New Delhi Railway station. As the matter related to Sidhharth Nagar hence the same was transferred to concerned place. She was medically examined at Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi where before the Medical Officer she stated her age as 18 years and reiterated the same story as given in the zero F.I.R.. However, she refused her internal medical examination and no external injury was found on her person. Her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and then 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.

¶9

Finding the person named in the F.I.R., the minor was produced before the concerned J.J.Board. His bail application was dismissed. The appeal filed challenging the order of J.J.Board was also dismissed. Now the minor is before this Court through is natural guardian/father under Section 102 of J.J.Act.

¶10

It is contended that besides ignoring broader principles of law as applicable in the matters of bail to the juvenile and mandate of Section 12 (1) of the J.J.Act, 2015 some very relevant facts touching upon the merits of the matter and the nature of the allegations have altogether been ignored

¶11

by the courts below and that the bail to him has been declined on the basis of presumptions though there has not been any substantive material on record to draw the inferences as have been drawn by the courts below. It is also argued that even if the statement of the victim though very inconsistent on material point, is taken as correct, it undoubtedly pointed out towards a consensual relationship. The victim is found to be 18 years. Therefore, the prosecution case stands at a very weak ground and in such a case the juvenile deserves liberty of bail.

¶12

I went through the impugned orders. The J.J.Board seems to have declined bail to the juvenile on the basis of social investigation report only. The appellate court, besides social investigation report prepared by the D.P.O. took into consideration the statement given by the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. and ultimately the conclusion, which was drawn by the courts below, was based on the opinion that once he is released, he shall return to same environment from which he had come. Therefore, there was probability, in their opinions, that he may face the moral, physical or psychological danger and his release may defeat ends of justice. My attention has been drawn towards affidavit purportedly given by mother of the victim and the victim herself stating that there was no forceful sexual assault on her and that they wanted to settle the matter between themselves. This fact is conceded by the opposite party that by filing such affidavit, the victim side appears to be inclined towards exoneration of the accused. Admittedly, the juvenile has no criminal history. There is nothing adverse in the social investigation report as far as the character and conduct of the accused is concerned. He is in custody since 30.04.2022 i.e. last eight months.

¶13

This juvenile has been of seventeen years and seven months of age on the date of the incident. It also appears that he had no previous criminal history. There is no material to suggest that in case he is released on bail, the ends of justice shall be defeated. Further there is no material to suggest that he may associate with persons of criminal antecedents or that he may be put to moral, physical or psychological danger.

¶14

In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 17.06.2022 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Siddharth Nagar and order dated 14.07.2022 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Siddharth Nagar are hereby set aside.

¶15

Let the revisionist, minor "X' through his natural guardian/father Paltan s/o Chhote Lal, resident of Sakin, Gonahatal, P.S. Kotwali Bansi, District Siddharth Nagar be released on bail in Case Crime No.59 of 2022, under Section 376 I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali Bansi, District Siddharth Nagar upon his father Paltan furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board,59 of 2022, under Section 376 I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali Bansi, District Siddharth Nagar subject to the following conditions:

¶16

(i) that the natural guardian/father Paltan 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;

¶17

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

¶18

(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;

¶19

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/J.J.Board 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.

¶20

Order Date :- 16.12.2022

¶21

Asha

¶22

Digitally signed by ASHA Date: 2022.12.16 17:17:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

X (Juvenile) 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

Juvenile-X Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Savitri and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Minor through Guardian and Father Shri Vinod Kumar Chaubey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Renu Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

X Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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