Allowed

Anand(Minor) v. State of U.P through Secretary Home and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2022CRLR/558/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision filed by a minor challenging the denial of bail by the Juvenile Justice Board and Superior Court. The High Court observed the detention was over two years with no material for restrictive statutory grounds. Bail was granted.

What did the court decide?

The child was released on bail through his father furnishing a bond with two solvent sureties, subject to non-association with criminals and other conditions.

Anand(Minor) Vs State of U.P through Secretary Home and 3… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 558 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Anand(Minor)

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Through Secretary Home And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Vivek Sharma,Ram Raj Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 13.10.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Amroha and the order dated 20.11.2021 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Amroha in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2021 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.358 of 2020, under section- 376D and section- 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Didauli, District- Amroha.

¶9

As per allegations in the F.I.R., the victim girl aged about 17 years had gone to her mother's samadhi on the date of incident i.e. 29.08.2020 at about 12:00 in the afternoon. Four persons including this juvenile, all resident of same village, forcibly dragged her in a cane field, where two of them namely Bhoora and Sheru sexually assaulted her and rest of the two namely Kapil and this juvenile stood outside. The F.I.R. was lodged by her father two days after the incident i.e. on 02.09.2020. Investigation commenced and the medical examination of the victim was carried out in which a bruise mark was found on the left buttock. As per Chief Medical Officer's report, she was found to be 17 years old. In her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., she threw allegations of sexual assault on three persons namely Sheru, Kapil and Gaurav and admittedly did not name the present revisionist. His name was taken by the victim in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. alleging that he too sexually assaulted her. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the juvenile under section 376D I.P.C. and section 3/4 of POCSO Act.

¶10

It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court, besides ignoring

¶11

the mandate of proviso to Section-12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 ignored the fact that the juvenile was never named in the statement given by the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C. He was not named as the person, who sexually assaulted her in F.I.R. too and rather was assigned role of standing outside the place of occurrence; his name was, for the first time, came into focus as one of the persons who indulged in sexual assault as others in her statement given under section 164 Cr.P.C. after a gap of several days. It is also contended that there has been successive improvement in the statements give by the victim and that there is a palpable variance between the two statements, which affected the credibility of the prosecution's case.

¶12

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

¶13

I went through the impugned orders. The Juvenile Justice Board in its order has observed that in case the juvenile is released on bail, he may come in contact with hardened criminals; thereafter proceeded to observe that in view of his immature age, he may cause harm to himself. The appellate court concurred with the inferences drawn by the Juvenile Justice Board and dismissed the appeal. Perusal of the two orders impels me to observe that the inferences as drawn by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court are based on presumptions and conjectures without having any material before them to draw the inferences to bring the case within the restrictive confines of proviso to Section- 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

¶14

I went through the statements of the victim. This fact is not disputable that initially his name was not mentioned in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Two persons Bhoora @ Mohd Azeem Ahamad and Gaurav were assigned almost a similar role have been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 08.01.2021 and 08.09.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.49248 of 2020 and 4810 of 2021; respectively. On the basis of aforesaid two bail orders, it is contended that two adults allegedly involved in this case and having assigned almost similar role have been granted bail by this Court, then there is no justification to keep the juvenile in custody just for the reason that he is a juvenile.

¶15

This fact is also not disputed that the juvenile is detained in this case since 06.09.2020 i.e. more than two years and two months now.

¶16

In view of the above and taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, present revision is

¶17

allowed and the order dated 20.11.2021 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Amroha and dated 13.10.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Amroha are hereby set-aside .

¶18

Let the revisionist, Minor "X", through his natural guardian/father- "Y" , R/o Village- Patei Khalsa, Police Station- Didauli, District- Amroha be released on bail in Case Crime No.358 of 2020, under section- 376D and section- 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Didauli, District- Amroha 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, Amroha subject to the following conditions:

¶19

(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;

¶20

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

¶21

(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;

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 22.11.2022 Saif

¶24

Digitally signed by SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN Date: 2022.11.22 17:28:01 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anand(Minor) v. State of U.P through Secretary Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand(Minor) v. State of U.P through Secretary Home 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

Munneelal and 34 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra @ Virendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mr. X Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Minor X Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Minor X through His Natural Guardian Father Vs State of U.P. and Another