Allowed

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

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2022CRLR/4357/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble J. Jyotsna Sharma allowed a criminal revision, setting aside lower court orders declining bail to a juvenile accused under the POCSO Act and IPC. The court granted release on bail citing the juvenile's age, lack of prior record, and period of detention already served. The judgment limited its observations to bail determination only.

What did the court decide?

Judgments/orders declining bail set aside; juvenile released on bail via guardian's bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding association, evidence tampering, and probation offic

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. - 4357 of 2022 Revisionist :- Juvenile-X Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Sushil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Sushil Kr. Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

This criminal revision has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 13.10.2021, passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Jalaun at Orai and order dated 9.12.2021, passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2021 ( Neeraj vs. State ) affirming the order of J. J. Board declining bail to the juvenile in case crime no. 171 of 2021, under Sections 376DA, 506 I.P.C. and 5G/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali Kalpi, District Jalaun at Orai.

¶6

As per the prosecution case, the minor daughter of the informant was forcibly carried away by this juvenile inside a hutment when she had gone to take bath at river Jamuna Ji on 19.6.2021 at about 3:00 P.M. and was sexually assaulted by him. The F.I.R. was lodged after two days of the incident on 21.6.2021 at 15:51. It is stated in the F.I.R. that a person named Dhirendra stood as guard outside the hut and that the girl was threatened with her life by the juvenile. The statements of the victim and other witnesses were recorded in which this fact was disclosed that a video clip of the act was also filmed. Her guardian refused her medical examination. After completing investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted u/s 376DA, 506 I.P.C. and Section 5G/6 POCSO Act. Finding the revisionist a minor, he was produced before the J.J. Board wherein in an age determination inquiry, he was declared aged about 13 years 4 months on the basis of educational certificates. The bail application moved on his behalf was dismissed by the J.J. Board by an order dated 13.10.2021. The appeal, filed on his behalf, also came to be dismissed by the appellate court by order dated 9.12.2021. Now the juvenile, through his guardian is before this Court u/s 102 of J.J. Act, 2015.

¶7

It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that he has been falsely implicated in this case as there was a tiff which had taken place during a marriage ceremony in which the juvenile had come to attend from a different district i.e. Hamirpur. It is

¶8

contended that had this kind of offence taken place as alleged in the F.I.R. and as alleged by the witnesses, the victim would have sustained injuries. However, her parents declined her medical examination. This fact brings whole of the allegations on a very weak grounds and this is a fact which cannot be ignored, while dealing with the bail application of the juvenile. It is also contended that for invoking provisions of bail u/s 12(1) of the J.J. Act, 2015, the law pre supposes that a prima facie case is made out against the accused/juvenile. There is no possibility that a boy who had come to attend a marriage function as member of barat would find an opportunity to ravish a girl, who, as per allegations contained in the F.I.R, had gone to take bath in a river at some distance from her residence.

¶9

It is also contended that the statement given by the victim herself is not free from doubt. During investigation, no evidence of making a video clip has been found. Besides, the above contention, it is forcefully argued that the juvenile is merely 13 years of age and that he has already undergone a period of detention of more than a year i.e. 1 year and 3 months to be more precise and this period can be counted as one third of the whole of the period of incarceration permitted by law in case of juveniles below 16 years of age. The attention has also been drawn to the social investigation report in which the District Probation Officer has given the details of the backdrop in which this incident allegedly took place and has raised fingers of suspicion of his being falsely implicated.

¶10

I went through the orders of J.J.Board as well as the appellate court. In my view the bail to the juvenile was declined on a pure and simple basis of the nature of allegations against him. Without considering the other facts and circumstances of the matter, the appellate court affirmed the order of the J.J. Board. Besides, taking notice of the nature of allegation, put reliance on the social investigation report. In my view, the appellate court did a very selective reading of the social investigation report for arriving at a conclusion that his release will expose him to any physical, moral and psychological danger and that the ends of justice shall stand defeated.

¶11

The juvenile-revisionist in this case has been found between 13-14 years. He is not having any criminal history. The social investigation report does not indicate that his has any criminal tendencies or company of any criminal persons instead the concluding part of the social investigation report points out in a different direction. This fact cannot be ignored that the juvenile cannot be treated as already convicted before the trial is concluded on merits and that he has already undergone almost one third of the maximum period of incarceration permitted

¶12

under the law relating to juveniles.

¶13

In view of the above, especially, in view of the period of incarceration already undergone, the revision is allowed . The judgment and order dated 13.10.2021, passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Jalaun at Orai and order dated 9.12.2021, passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai, are hereby set aside.

¶14

Let the revisionist, juvenile "X' through his guardian 'Y', be released on bail in Case Crime No. 171 of 2021, under Sections 376DA, 506 I.P.C. and 5G/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Kotwali Kalpi, District Jalaun at Orai. Upon his guardian 'Y' 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:

¶15

(i) that the guardian '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;

¶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

(iv) The District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the revisionist and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Jalaun at Orai on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

¶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 :- 15.12.2022 Vandana

¶21

Digitally signed by VANDANA GAUTAM Date: 2022.12.16 18:08:27 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

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

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