Allowed

Minor 'X' v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2022CRLR/372/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 372 of 2021, the Allahabad High Court allowed bail to a juvenile (Minor X) accused under POCSO and IPC 376, setting aside lower court orders. The court found insufficient material to apply the bail proviso under Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, given the juvenile's lack of criminal history and the gravity of allegations not supported by evidence.

What did the court decide?

Juvenile released on bail with guardian furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, subject to conditions regarding conduct and court appearance.

Minor 'X' Vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 372 of 2021 Revisionist :- Minor 'X' Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Janardan Yadav,Kirt Raj Yadav,Sitaram Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Sitaram Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State of U.P.

¶4

This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 05.12.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh and further challenging the order dated 18.01.2021 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 54/2020 affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board declining bail to the juvenile in criminal case arising out of Case Crime No. 62 of 2020 under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Tahbarpur, District-Azamgarh.

¶5

As per prosecution case, minor daughter of the informant was ravished by this revisionist-juvenile on 17.09.2020 at about 11 hours in the morning when she had gone to ease herself outside the village in a field belonging to a co-villager; It is said in the FIR that the juvenile-revisionist lay in wait for her; She was dragged in a cane field; his companion Rinku made a video clip of the act and also made it viral; it is said that the incident was disclosed by the victim to her mother; when her mother returned to her house; an FIR was lodged after 2 days of the incident; the investigation commenced; the statement of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded; she was medically examined and after completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was submitted under Section 376 IPC, Sections 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 67B of IT Act. The juvenile was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board and he was found aged 17 years 1 month on the date of occurrence. The bail application moved on his behalf was dismissed by the Juvenile Justice Board by order dated 05.12.2020. The appeal challenging the aforesaid order of the Juvenile Justice Board also came to be dismissed by order dated 18.01.2021. Now the juvenile, through his father is before this Court in revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

¶6

It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the impugned 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 Section 12 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 courts below ignored the fact that the juvenile has no criminal history or criminal tendencies and that there was no possibility that he may come in association with any criminal or may be exposed to any physical, moral and psychological danger. No sign of use of any force was found in medical examination of the victim. The FIR was lodged after 2 days of the incident. As there was no credible evidence against the juvenile, hence, the courts below should have noticed this fact for releasing him on bail. It is also brought to my notice that the juvenile is in detention since more than 2 years now and that his companion co-accused Pintu @ Adarsh Kumar has already been

¶7

granted liberty of bail in the year 2020, though the allegations of making of obscene video clip of the act and making it viral existed against him only.

¶8

I went through the impugned orders. In a very brief order bereft of any discussion on any material on record, the Juvenile Justice Board dismissed the bail application of juvenile. The appellate Court was of the view that the case comes within the proviso of Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act. In my opinion, there was no real material on record for drawing such inferences as have been drawn by the appellate Court and the Juvenile Justice Board. I considered the nature of allegations, the evidence available on record and the fact that there has been nothing adverse as to conduct and character in the social investigation report catching attention of the Court for the purpose of declining bail to him. Apart from the above, this fact cannot be ignored that the co-accused a companion of the present revisionist-juvenile has already been released on bail by an order dated 13.10.2020 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Azamgarh.

¶9

In view of the above especially in view of the fact that there is no material/ground to bring the matter within proviso to Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and of the fact that the juvenile is in detention since last more than 2 years now, the revision is allowed . The judgment and order dated 18.01.2021 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Azamgarh and order dated 05.12.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh, are hereby set aside .

¶10

Let the revisionist, minor "X' through his guardian/father be released on bail in Case Crime No. 62 of 2020 under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Tahbarpur, District-Azamgarh 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, Azamgarh subject to the following conditions:

¶11

(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;

¶12

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

¶13

(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.

¶14

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 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.

¶15

Order Date :- 7.12.2022 Vik/-

¶16

Digitally signed by VIKRAM GUPTA Date: 2022.12.07 16:37:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Minor 'X' v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minor 'X' v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vickky (Minor) Vs State of Up and Another

Juvenile -X Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saheb Khan Vs State of U.P.

Km. Laxmi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nakul Pawar @ Vikrant Pawar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Awadhesh Kumar @ Manoj Vs Smt. Mamta Devi