Allowed

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

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2023CRLR/1015/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision arose from a POCSO case involving a juvenile. The High Court set aside orders by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court for failing to consider Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act and the Probation Officer's report. The criminal revision was allowed, and the delinquent was ordered released on bail with specific supervisory conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders by Juvenile Justice Board and appellate court set aside. Delinquent released on bail by executing personal bond and two sureties satisfying Juvenile Justice Board with conditions regar

X Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:133586

¶2

Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1015 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- X Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Shyam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist through his father with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the order dated 09.02.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Juvenile Judge, Sonbhadra in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2022 (Rajan Kannaujia Vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 10.01.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Sonbhadra in Bail Application No. 85 of 2021 (Rajan Kannaujia Vs. State) arising out of Case Crime No. 178 of 2021, under Sections 376 (3), 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 5 (j) ii/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Chopan, District Sonbhadra.

¶7

It is submitted that in this case the victim was minor and allegedly there was relation between the victim and the present delinquent, as a result physical relations were established several times and she became pregnant and when this fact came into her knowledge she made pressure on the delinquent to marry but he refused, as a result present F.I.R. was lodged. It is further submitted that the age of the delinquent was 16 years and 4 months at the time of alleged incident so he was juvenile at that time. It is also submitted that though pregnancy of 26 weeks and 5 days was seen in ultrasonography examination but no any D.N.A. report was obtained to establish the fraternity of the present delinquent with the unborn child. In this way, it cannot be said that the present delinquent established physical relations with the victim. There is nothing on record to support the allegation as made by the victim herself except her statement. It is further submitted that there is nothing adverse to the present delinquent in the D.P.O. report. It is further submitted that the provisions as contained u/s 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act had not been considered by the Juvenile Justice Board even the report submitted by Probation Officer was also not considered. The appellate court has also not considered all these facts but rejected the appeal without applying its judicial mind and considering the law as contained u/s 12 of the aforesaid Act. The delinquent is in Juvenile Care Home since 14.07.2021 i.e. more than two years and his psychology is being affected adversely, therefore, requested to set aside order passed by the learned J.J. Board as well as appellate court and allow the criminal revision.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist, perusal of record, the provisions as contained u/s 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, the report submitted by the Probation Officer, it appears that Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court had not considered the relevant provisions and the material on record in well manner but passed the order without applying their judicial mind. In this way, there appears ground in this revision and the orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court are liable to be set aside.

¶10

Accordingly, the orders passed by Juvenile Justice Board dated 10.01.2022 and the appellate court dated 09.02.2022 are, hereby, set aside and present criminal revision is hereby, allowed .

¶11

It is directed that delinquent/applicant be released on bail on executing person bond by the revisionist ( father of the delinquent) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board concerned on following conditions :-

¶12

(i) The revisionist/ father will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the revisionist will not be permitted to go 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 repeat the offence.

¶13

(ii) The revisionist/ father will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juvenile will pursue his study at the appropriate level which he would be encouraged to do besides other constructive activities and not be allowed to waste his time in unproductive and excessive recreational pursuits.

¶14

(iii) Juvenile and the revisionist/ father will report to the Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 6.7.2023 Suraj Srivastav

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA 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

Sarwan @ Shrawan Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Ramkishor Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

X- Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Juvenile -X Vs State of U.P. and Another