Allowed

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

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2022CRLR/455/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Higher Court allowed a criminal revision, set aside lower court orders denying bail to a 16-year-old juvenile, and ordered his release on bail with conditions, noting lack of prior history and non-serious nature of injuries.

What did the court decide?

Juvenile released on bail via personal bond with two sureties subject to undertaking by guardian regarding social environment and non-interference with witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 455 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- X Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shailendra Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Singh holding brief of Sri Ashok Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ashish Kumar holding brief of Sri Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This criminal revision has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 13.08.2021 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Mathura and order dated 18.09.2021 passed by Additional Special Judge, POCSO Act, court no.2 Mathura, in Criminal/Juvenile Appeal No.74 of 2021 affirming the order of J. J. Board declining bail to the juvenile in case crime no.133 of 2021, under Sections 377 and 506 I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Vrindavan, District Mathura.

¶7

As per prosecution case, the victim aged about three years was put to forcible sexual assault of unnatural manner by the juvenile on 15.02.2021. The victim disclosed the matter to her mother and an F.I.R. was lodged after two days of the incident on 17.02.2021.

¶8

As per medical examination report, no injury was found on the orifice or cannal anus except an abrasion near anus at 12 O clock dimension 0.75cm x 025cm. The statements of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded. He alleged and supported the version of F.I.R.

¶9

Finding the accused as juvenile, the matter was placed before the J.J.Board wherein age determination enquiry was conducted. He was found aged 16 years and five months. Social investigation was conducted by DPO.

¶10

An application to seek custody of the juvenile was heard by the J.J.Board but the same was dismissed by order dated 13.08.2021 only on the basis of report of D.P.O. An appeal has been preferred against the J.J.Board. The same came to be dismissed.

¶11

This fact is not disputed that the juvenile has no criminal history. This fact is also not disputed that social investigation report does not reveal any criminal tendencies and that his social economic background was found satisfactory, however, the D.P.O in concluding paragraph of his report indicated towards lack of healthy and moral atmosphere, which according to him led the juvenile into committing this kind of offence. It is also not disputed that the juvenile is in incarceration since 18.02.2021 i.e. almost one year and nine months have elapsed since his custody in observation home.

¶12

As far as the merit of the case is concerned, it is argued on behalf of the revisionist that if the injuries on the person of the victim are taken on face value, at the most it can be said that there has been an attempt to commit the crime. It may be noted that only one abrasion was found that too of the nature of external injury. No sign of forcible insertion of any object was found in the medical examination.

¶13

In view of the above, especially, in view of the period of incarceration already undergone and the fact that the juvenile has no criminal tendencies which excluded the probability of him coming in association of any criminal or expose to any moral danger, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 13.08.2021 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Mathura and order dated 18.09.2021 passed by Additional Special Judge, POCSO Act, court no.2 Mathura are hereby set aside.

¶14

Let the revisionist, minor "X' through his natural guardian/father Ravikant Sharma, resident of Gaura Nagar Gurukul Ke Pichhe, Bangar Vrindavan, P.S. Vrindavan, District Mathura, be released on bail in case crime no.133 of 2021, under Sections 377 and 506 I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Vrindavan, District Mathura upon his father Ravikant Sharma furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Mathura subject to the following conditions:

¶15

(i) that the natural guardian/father Sri Ravikant Sharma 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;

¶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, Mathura on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine. Order Date :- 10.11.2022

¶19

Asha

¶20

Digitally signed by ASHA Date: 2022.11.11 15:27:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Babu Lal Alias Tarak Nath Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Umesh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Najrunnisha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ismail Ali Shah and Another Vs Principal Judge Family Court, Sonbhadra, Up and Another