Allowed

Minor 'X' v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2022CRLR/3653/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a criminal revision filed by a juvenile (now adult petitioner) and his natural guardian seeking bail. The Court set aside the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and Sessions Judge which had declined bail. The revision was allowed based on social investigation indicating no criminal background and the immature nature of the relationship between the 14-year-old accused and

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; orders of JJB and Sessions Judge set aside; juvenile released on bail subject to undertaking by guardian.

Minor 'X' Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3653 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Rishabh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Sheel Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sheel Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. None appears on behalf of the informant despite service of notice.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat and the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2021 by which the order of the Juvenile Justice Board was affirmed and bail to the juvenile was declined in a matter arising out Case Crime No.61 of 2021, under section- 363 I.P.C., Police StationChaubeypur, Disricit- Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

As per prosecution case, the victim's brother lodged an F.I.R. that his sister earlier disappeared from a temple near his village on 15.03.2021. However, she was found by two girls, recovered and handed over by the police to the informant. Thereafter, again on 23.02.2021 at about 4:30 a.m. in the morning, she was not found in the house. The informant searched for her but could not get anything about her whereabouts. On the basis of this F.I.R., a case under section 363 I.P.C. was registered against unknown person. After a gap of about a week, she was found and her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which she has stated her age as 17 years and stated that she had a love affair with her classmate and that he assured her of marrying her. On the night of 22/23.03.2021, she was enticed away by the juvenile. Both of them stayed at a temple that night, thereafter stayed at different places at Kanpur city. She was forcibly made to establish physical relations with him. When they became penniless, he went for arranging the same, meanwhile she was recovered by her brother and police. In her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., though she again stated that she was acquainted with the juvenile and was meeting him, however she alleged that she was forcibly taken by him to his uncle's house, where she was forced into establishing sexual

¶9

relations with the juvenile.

¶10

As per prosecution papers, she refused to undergo medical examination, however later on, she was medically examined and no external or internal injury was found on her person; no sign of use of force was found. After investigation, the case was converted into sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and section 3/4 POCSO Act. Finding the accused as minor, the matter was brought to the Juvenile Justice Board, where in an age determination inquiry, he declared to be aged about 14 years, 8 months and 15 days on the date of occurrence. His bail application was dismissed by the Juvenile Justice Board. The criminal appeal preferred on his behalf was also dismissed. Now, the juvenile through his natural guardian/father is before this Court in criminal revision under section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

¶11

It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the bail applications have been rejected in a summary and arbitrary manner, on the basis of mere presumptions. It is further contended that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court failed to see that the victim as well as the juvenile were classmates and they had, as per admission of victim, a relationship and in such a case, the ground realities cannot be ignored and the juvenile cannot be branded as a person of criminal bent of mind. More so, in view of social investigation report, which clearly disclosed no criminal history or criminal tendencies, no chance of getting in association with any known criminal and no material to suggest that he may get exposed to physical, moral or psychological danger. It is also contended that ends of justice demand that he may be released on bail to pursue his further studies as at the time of apprehension, he was student of Class-8.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed this criminal revision.

¶13

I went through the impugned orders. It appears that the Juvenile Justice Board passed the impugned order without taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the matter as well as without taking into consideration the broader principles of law applicable in the matters of bail to the juvenile. It appears from the order of the appellate court that it arrived an inference finding it fit to decline him bail on the sole basis of social investigation report of the District Probation Officer.

¶14

In view of the material collected during the investigation and the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist that in such a case, the juvenile cannot be put into category of a criminal

¶15

where the victim as well as the juvenile belonging to same age group have been in relationship leading to an immature behaviour. This fact is not disputable that there has not been any sign of use of force and that the girl as per her own statement, is aged about 17 years and a student of class-1 and the boy as per the age determination inquiry is aged about 14 years. The juvenile is in observation home since 15.05.2021, i.e., almost one and a half years.

¶16

In view of above, present revision is allowed and the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Kanpur Dehat and dated 21.09.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat are hereby setaside .

¶17

Let the revisionist, Minor "X", through his natural guardian/father- "Y" , R/o Village- Pratappur Udait, Police Station- Shivli, District- Kanpur Dehat be released on bail in Case Crime No.61 of 2021, under section- 363 I.P.C., Police Station- Chaubeypur, Disricit- Kanpur Nagar upon his father furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat subject to the following conditions:

¶18

(i) that the natural guardian/father- "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 father will ensure that the juvenile will not indulge in any criminal activity;

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 15.11.2022 Saif

¶23

Digitally signed by SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN Date: 2022.11.15 17:55:20 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Minor 'X' v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minor '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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Minor X through His Guardain/Mother Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Sanjay Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar @ Maheshwari Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akhlak Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Asgar Vs State of U.P. and Another