Allowed

Abdul Rahman @ Dhondhu (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2023CRLR/357/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a criminal revision praying to set aside orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and appellate court. The Court held these orders were passed without applying judicial mind to relevant facts and Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, directing the release of the juvenile on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Orders of Juvenile Justice Board dated 23.11.2020 and appellate court dated 08.01.2021 set aside; revisionist (father) to secure bail for juvenile on executing person bond and sureties with specific c

Abdul Rahman @ Dhondhu (Minor) Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:142599

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 357 of 2021

¶4

Revisionist :- Abdul Rahman @ Dhondhu (Minor) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Janardan Yadav,Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinod Kumar Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

List revised none appeared on behalf of opposite party even in the revised call.

¶7

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

¶8

The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist through his father with a prayer to allow this revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 08.01.2021 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Rape and POCSO Act), Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2020 as well as order dated 23.11.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Azamgarh. Further prayed to release the revisionist on bail in Case Crime No. 69 of 2020 under Section 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., 3/4 POCSO Act, u/s 3(2)(V), 3(2)(Va) S.C./S.T. Act and u/s 67 Information of Technology Act, Police Station Jeeyanpur , District Azamgarh.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the delinquent was aged about 17 years and 4 months at the time of alleged incident. It is further submitted that the age of the victim was mentioned as 12 in the F.I.R. but during investigation she was found to be aged about 16 to 18 years. As per allegation rape was committed by the delinquent with the victim six months prior to the alleged incident but no any complaint was made by her either to her parents or to any other person. During medical examination no any injury or sign of sexual assault was found on the person of the victim. It is further submitted that there is nothing adverse against the interest of the delinquent in the report submitted by D.P.O.

¶10

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. He is in Child Care Home since 10.10.2020 i.e. more than 2 and a half years and his psychology is being affected adversely, therefore, requested to set aside orders passed by the J.J. Board as well as appellate court and allow the criminal revision.

¶11

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

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist, the time delinquent remained in Child Care Home, 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 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.

¶13

Accordingly, the orders passed by Juvenile Justice Board dated 23.11.2020 and the appellate court dated 08.01.2021 are, hereby, set aside and present criminal revision is hereby, allowed .

¶14

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 :-

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

Order Date :- 18.7.2023 Suraj Srivastav

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abdul Rahman @ Dhondhu (Minor) v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rahman @ Dhondhu (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

Xx Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Gyanendra Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar Bind Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

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