Allowed

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

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2022CRLR/3466/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision challenging bail rejection orders by the Juvenile Justice Board and Special Judge. Finding no real danger or adverse social report and noting the victim stated she eloped voluntarily, the Court set aside lower orders and granted bail to the juvenile.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 28.04.2022 and 04.06.2022 were set aside. The juvenile was released on bail subject to conditions including preventing contact with criminals and ensuring no tampering with e

Juvenile X Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3466 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Juvenile X Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Vijay Singh Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinod Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vijay Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ghanshyam Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief for Sri Vinod Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jalaun at Orai and the order dated 04.06.2022 passed by the Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2022 by the which the order of the Juvenile Justice Board was affirmed and bail to the juvenile was declined in a matter arising out of Case Crime No.10 of 2022, under sections- 363, 366, 376D and sections3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kalpi, District- Jalaun.

¶8

As per prosecution case, daughter of the informant who was residing with her relatives and who was studying in B.Sc. Ist year, was found missing in the night of 02.01.2022; this fact was intimated by her relatives to her father and they searched for her; after a gap of about nine days, they came to know that the juvenile was also missing from his house for the last nine days; the F.I.R. was lodged on 10.01.2022 against the present revisionist in which it was also stated that the victim as well as the juvenile used to study in the same institution and in the same class; the statement of witnesses including the victim was recorded in which she said that she left her residence and accompanied the juvenile on her own and they got married to each other on 08.01.2022 in a temple and have been living as husband and wife since then; in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., she reiterated the same story disclosing that she had liking for the present revisionist and she planned to perform the court marriage with him, once he is released on bail; she was forced to go through the marriage ceremony in a temple as parents of the juvenile had arranged his marriage with some other girl; she refused to undergo medical examination. After investigation, a charge-sheet under sections 363, 366, 376

¶9

I.P.C. and section- 3/4 POCSO Act, 2012 was filed; the application for bail moved before the Juvenile Justice Board was dismissed by an order dated 28.04.2022; the appeal filed on behalf of the juvenile was also dismissed on 04.06.2022. Now, the juvenile through his mother is before this Court in this criminal revision filed under section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

¶10

It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that besides ignoring the mandate of proviso to Section-12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 as well as the broader principles of law applicable in the matters of bail to the juvenile, the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court altogether ignored the fact that from the statements given by the victim, the most important witness of the episode, no offence was made out; the victim clearly stated that she was not under any compulsion from any side and that she infact eloped with the juvenile out of her own free will and desire. My attention has been drawn to the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. given by the victim, wherein she stated that once the juvenile is released on bail, she will formally marry him and that both of them have been in relationship; this fact has also come in evidence that both of them are under graduate students in the same college and in the same class.

¶11

At this juncture, the counsel for the respondent no.4 disclosed that the counter affidavit has been filed by the deponent- father of the victim who is the informant in this case. It is stated therein that he has no objection if the juvenile is granted bail and that as his daughter is now major, therefore he has no objection if the juvenile as well as the victim desire to live together.

¶12

I went through the impugned orders; it appears that there was no real and substantive material to arrive at a conclusion that in case the revisionist is released, he may face physical, moral or psychological danger, or that the ends of justice shall be defeated. I went through the social investigation report in which there is nothing adverse about the conduct or character of the juvenile. It is also disclosed from the social investigation report that at the time of his apprehension, he was preparing for the IIT entrance examination and obviously his academic pursuits have been affected by sudden apprehension and detention in this case. In my view, the matter does not come within the restrictive confines of proviso to section- 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶13

In view of the above, present revision is allowed and the

¶14

order dated 04.06.2022 passed by the Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jalaun at Orai and dated 28.04.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jalaun at Orai are hereby set-aside.

¶15

Let the revisionist, Minor "X", through his natural guardian/mother- "Y" , R/o Village- Noorpur, Police StationChurkhi, District- Jalaun be released on bail in Case Crime No.10 of 2022, under sections- 363, 366, 376D and sections3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kalpi, District- Jalaun upon his mother furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of her relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Jalaun at Orai subject to the following conditions:

¶16

(i) that the natural guardian/mother- "Y" 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 mother 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

The trial court shall not be influenced by any finding or observation made in this order.

¶20

Copy of this order be certified to the Juvenile Justice Board/court concerned immediately.

¶21

Order Date :- 15.12.2022 Saif

¶22

Digitally signed by SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN Date: 2022.12.19 10:22:45 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

Km. Anika(Minor) and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Sanjay Vs State of U.P. and Another

X (Juvenile ) Vs State of U.P. and Another

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