Allowed

Juvenile A.B. v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2023ABAIL/12112/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed anticipatory bail to a juvenile applicant in a case involving POCSO Act and IPC charges. The court relied on Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and granted bail subject to standard conditions without prejudicing the trial court's independent opinion.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed subject to personal bond with two sureties and conditions of non-aviation, no tampering, and appearance before the trial court.

Juvenile A.B. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:216135

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12112 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Juvenile A.B. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar,Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice to the opposite party no. 2 has been served on 24.10.2023.

¶7

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 3 of 2023, under Sections 377/511, 323 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Nehtaur, District Bijnor, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has next stated that there is no medical report to suggest that any attempt to commit sodomy has been made by the applicant or any of the accused persons. The medical report indicates that simple injuries are sustained by the mother and son duo. The said injury reports were prepared on 6.1.2023 at 3.15 pm and 3.25 pm respectively. It is next stated that the application moved u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C was treated as complaint case by the Magistrate concerned. Learned counsel has also stated that the application u/s 154 (3) Cr.P.C. has not been properly filed.

¶10

Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court dated 24.5.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8361 of 2020 (Mohammad Zaid vs. State of U.P.

¶11

and another) , whereby it has been opined that the anticipatory bail can be filed with respect to a minor.

¶12

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶13

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶15

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Juvenile A.B. involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶17

i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶18

ii. that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶19

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶20

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the

¶22

applicant.

¶23

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶24

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶25

Order Date :- 9.11.2023 Shalini

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Juvenile A.B. v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile A.B. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Puran Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Umesh Vs State of U.P.

Sarvesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another

Sanjay Prasad Jaiswal Vs State of U.P.

Praveen Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another