Allowed

Monu Urf Maan Singh Yadav (Minor) v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2022CRLR/982/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision of a juvenile (Minors) seeking bail, reversing the lower courts' rejection. The court held that the revisionist did not meet the stringent exceptions under Section 12(i) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 to deny bail.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned judgment and order; bail application allowed on furnishing personal bond and sureties with specific supervision conditions.

Monu Urf Maan Singh Yadav (Minor) Vs State… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 982 of 2021 Revisionist :- Monu Urf Maan Singh Yadav (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Upendra Kumar Tiwari,Phool Singh Yadav,Satyendra Narayan Singh,Shiv Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶3

Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused he record.

¶4

No one has put in appearance in behalf of the opp.party no. 2.

¶5

The instant revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9.3.2021 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Nagar in case crime no. 7 of 2021, under sections 377, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offence (POCSO) Act, police station Maharajpur, District Kanpur Nagar. By the impugned order the bail application filed on behalf of the revisionist has been rejected. Order dated 23.3.2021 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Room no. 25, Kanpur Nagar in criminal appeal no. 35 of 2021 is also challenged whereby the order of Juvenile Justice Board Kanpur Nagar dated 9.3.2021 has been confirmed.

¶6

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is a juvenile who is not a habitual offender. There is no criminal history to his credit from 9.1.2021 he has been lodged in observation home. He has not committed any offence. As per the first information report, he has been assigned the only role of pulling an eleven years old boy named, Govind, the grand son of the first informant. Though the allegation of unnatural sexual offence is also against him, but in the medical report of the child appended at page '49' of the paper book, no external injury has been found on the anal of the child Govind. As per pathologist report dated 12.1.2021, no spermatozoa are found in the supplied slide. There is enmity between the parties, so he has been falsely implicated in the offence. As per report of probationer officer, Kanpur Nagar, during the cricket match, some quarrel took place amongst the students as a result of which he has been falsely implicated. The revisionist is a student of class XII and he undertakes that he will not indulge himself in any such crime. It is further argued that the observation made by the lower courts are flimsy and imaginary. There is no evidence on record that revisionist will come in the contact of anti-social elements. No purpose would be fulfilled

¶7

by keeping him in observation home, so prayer for bail is made.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed and argued that the unnatural sexual offence against the revisionist is prima facie proved from the statement of an eleven years old Govind recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is further argued that the revisionist is a juvenile in conflict with law. He is a budding criminal and he will involve himself on release in such offences which have serious adverse societal impact. There is likelihood of his coming into close contact of criminals that would lead him facing physical, psychological and moral danger.

¶9

I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties.

¶10

The revisionist has been declared juvenile vide order dated 2.3.2021. This order has become final as it has not been challenged before the appropriate court. On the date of commission of the offence, the juvenile is said to be of 16 years 8 months 27 days of age. He is a student of XII class. All these facts are not disputed. In the report of the probationary officer dated 25.2.2021 appended at page '68 ' of the paper book, it has been submitted that during the cricket match, the accused met a quarrel with some other students and due to this quarrel only he has been implicated in this case. The father of the juvenile has undertaken that he will take the juvenile in his custody and will not let him involve in any offence further. So the probability of further indulging in any offence is denied by the probationary officer.

¶11

If we go through the first information report, the allegation is that on the fateful day, the accused Monu was pulling the hands of Govind. When the grand mother of Govind went to rescue her grandson, they both ( victim and grandmother) were mishandled by the accused. Govind disclosed the fact that previously also many times, he had become prey of the accused Monu who had done wrong with him. It is also alleged that after committing the offence, Monu used to give Rs. 20-30/- to the minor Govind and used to extend threat of life to him in case he discloses this fact to somebody. On that day also, the revisionist was pulling Govind for committing the said offence. The statements of victim under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are also recorded wherein again the same allegation has been repeated. In the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim boy stated that once when he was going back from school, the accused pulled down his underwear and committed wrong with him. When the cousin of Govind witnessed the incident, Monu slapped him. On the date of incident when he was rescued by his grand mother, he was hanged upside down and thrashed by

¶12

the accused.

¶13

As per the medical report on the record, no external injury on the anal of the victim has been found. Nor any spermatozoa in supplied slid has been found by the pathologist. As per report of Probationary Officer the present accused is said to have falsely implicated due to quarrel taken place among the children. If we go through the the provision of bail application, the bail can be denied to the juvenile in the circumstance enumerated under the provision of Section 12 (i) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 which reads as under:-

¶14

"12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law.—(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person: Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision."

¶15

It is settled law that the gravity of the offence is not a relevant consideration for refusing or granting bail to the juvenile. While, both the courts below have been swayed away by the fact that nature of offence is heinous and therefore, they have concluded that the case of revisionist falls in the three disentitling exception postulated under the proviso of Section 12(i) of the Act, 2015.

¶16

The bail of a juvenile can be denied only if there appears reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminals or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶17

From perusal of the record, it reveals that the revisionist or his family members have no criminal history. The report of probationary officer also does not dis-entitled him of the bail. The entire report does not indicate any credible fact or factor which brings the case of the revisionist in any of the three disentitling, reasons postulated under the proviso of Section 12 (i) of the Act, 2015.

¶18

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the mandate of the proviso of Section 12(i) of the Act, 2015, this

¶19

court is of considered opinion that there is nothing on record on the basis of which it can be inferred that the revisionist case is one that falls into any of the three exceptions postulated under the proviso to Section 12(i) of the Act, 2015. The courts below have acted with material irregularities.

¶20

The instant revision, thus, deserves to succeed for the reasons mentioned herein above. As a result, the revision succeeds and is allowed.

¶21

The judgment and order dated 9.3.2021 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Nagar in case crime no. 7 of 2021, under sections 377, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offence (POCSO) Act, police station Maharajpur, District Kanpur Nagar and the order dated 23.3.2021 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Room no. 25, Kanpur Nagar in criminal appeal no. 35 of 2021 are set aside and reversed. The bail application of the revisionist stands allowed.

¶22

Let the revisionist, Monu Urf Maan Singh Yadav (Minor) through his natural guardian father be released on bail in the aforementioned case on his natural guardian 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 Nagar subject to the following conditions:

¶23

(i) that the natural guardian father 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 repeat the offence.

¶24

(ii) The revisionist and his natural guardian will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month, commencing with the first Monday of April, 2022 and if during any calendar month the first Monday falls on a holiday, then on the following working day.

¶25

(iii) 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, Kanpur Nagar on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

¶26

Order Date :- 23.2.2022/Gss

¶27

Digitally signed by GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA Date: 2022.03.03 16:24:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Monu Urf Maan Singh Yadav (Minor) v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu Urf Maan Singh Yadav (Minor) 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sweta Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sadakat Ali Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Jagdish Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Sahu @ Munna Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharam Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishna Murari Chaubey Vs Smt. Madhuri Shukla