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

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

Court No. - 70

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1217 of 2022

Revisionist :- Xxxx- Juvenile Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Rakesh Kumar Verma,Shivajee Srivastava,Sunil Kumar Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akshaya Kumar

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the materials placed on record.

This revision under section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is directed against the order dated 20.12.2021 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.3, Moradabad in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2021 dismissing the said appeal arising out of order dated 12.11.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Moradabad in Case No. 66 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No.244 of 2021, under Section 377 I.P.C. and Section 5m/6/18 POCSO Act, Police Station Pakbada, District Moradabad, rejecting the bail application of the revisionist (juvenile).

As per the prosecution case, on 21.8.2021 when the informant was not at his home, at about 11.30 A.M. the accused took his three years old son with him to his house on the pretext of getting toffee and committed unnatural offence with him. After some time his son came crying and told him the whole incident.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to village party bandi. He further submits that medical report does not support the commissioning of offence and in the medical examination of the victim no mark of any external injury has been found nor the bleeding. As per pathology report no dead or alive spermatozoa has been seen on the victim. It is next submitted that revisionist is student of high school and is in jail since 02.08.2021, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the factual aspect of the matter as argued by learned counsel for the appellant.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, considering the period of incarceration, medical report does not support commissioning of rape and considering the argument that there is no adverse report of D.P.O. with regard to Proviso under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, this Court is of the view that the revisionist has made out a case for bail. The court below has erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned orders suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same are liable to set-aside and the revision is liable to be allowed.

Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the revisionist is set aside.

Let the revisionist be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

(i) The revisionist shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(ii) The revisionist shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) In case, the revisionist misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the revisionist fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The revisionist shall remain present, in person, before the trial

court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the revisionist is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 7.2.2023 Abhishek Singh

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad