Allowed

Juvenile v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2023CRLR/1796/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision filed by a juvenile delinquent against the Juvenile Justice Board and appellate court orders rejecting bail. The court set aside the impugned orders quoting that they were passed without considering relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and the District Probation Officer Report, compelling release on bail under conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of Juvenile Justice Board and appellate court dated 03.02.2021 and 26.03.2021 set aside. Delinquent released on bail on ordinary bond with conditions.

Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:165343

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1796 of 2021 Revisionist :- Juvenile Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist through his mother under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act-2015 (hereinafter referred to as "J.J. Act, 2015) to allow the present revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 26.03.2021 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court NO.3/Additional Sessions Judge, District Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2021 (Agam @ Laddu (Juvenile) vs. State of U.P. and another) whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist has been rejected and the earlier order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly by which the bail application of the revisionist has been rejected in Case Crime No.1312 of 2019 under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 6 POCSO Act, Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly (State vs. Agam @ Laddu) and also prays to release the revisionist/delinquent on bail in the aforesaid case.

¶7

It is submitted that in this case the delinquent/applicant was aged about 17 years at the time of alleged incident. Further submitted that as per allegation in F.I.R. when the victim came back from her tuition classes she was called by the present delinquent in an auto outside the door and he showed obscene film/video on his mobile phone to the victim and also started molesting by entering his finger in her private part. Further submitted that the medical examination of the victim was done promptly but no any injury either external or internal was found on her person. It is further submitted that even on her private part there was no any mark of injury suggesting the entry of finger which shows that no such act was done by the delinquent as alleged in F.I.R. and in the statement of the victim. There is no any material on record to show that he did such an obscene act with the victim. It is also submitted that on account of mutual dispute this F.I.R. was lodged with false allegation against the present delinquent. The report submitted by the D.P.O. is also not adverse for the present delinquent even though the juvenility of the delinquent was not considered either by the J.J. Board or by the appellate court and also the provisions as contained u/s 12 of the aforesaid Act were not considered by the courts below while passing the aforesaid orders. The delinquent is in Juvenile Care Home since 01.11.2019 (i.e. more than three and a half years) and his psychology is being affected adversely, therefore, requested to set aside the orders passed by the

¶8

J.J. Board as well as appellate court and allow the present criminal revision as the orders passed by the courts below cannot be said to be in conformity with law.

¶9

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

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the provisions as contained u/s 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, the report submitted by the District Probation Officer, the medical examination report of the victim and the period present delinquent remained in child care home, 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 orders 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.

¶11

Accordingly, the orders passed by Juvenile Justice Board dated 03.02.2021 and the appellate court dated 26.03.2021 are, hereby, set aside and the present criminal revision is hereby, allowed.

¶12

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

¶13

(i) The natural guardian/mother 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 mother will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.

¶14

(ii) The natural guardian/mother 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.

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

Order Date :- 17.8.2023/Ashok Gupta

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Juvenile v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile 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

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

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

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

Juvenile X Vs State of U.P. and Another

X Juvenile Vs State of Up and Another

Manoj Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others