Allowed

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

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2023CRLR/5160/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision, setting aside orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and Additional Sessions Judge for not applying judicial mind to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act and relevant probation reports. The revisionist was released on bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and appellate court; release the revisionist on bail by executing person bond with two sureties on specific conditions regarding supervision, studies

X Juvenile Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:149754

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5160 of 2022

¶4

Revisionist :- X Juvenile Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Sushil Kumar Tewari,Braham Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Kumar Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Heard Sri Braham Singh 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 21.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bulandshahar in Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 2022 as well as order dated 17.10.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahar. Further prayed to release the revisionist on bail in Case Crime No. 408 of 2019 under Section 376, 506 I.P.C., Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(5) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Aurangabad, District Bulandshahar.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the delinquent was aged about 16 years 3 months and 20 days at the time of alleged incident with the victim. It is further submitted that in the F.I.R. three accused persons were named but during investigation two others were exonerated. It is further submitted that the statement of the victim has already been recorded before the learned trial court as P.W. 1 in which she had not supported the prosecution version of rape but specifically stated that she knew the present delinquent but he was not involved in the three persons who committed rape with her. In this way, the delinquent being innocent languishing in Child Care Home for a long period. 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 17.11.2019 i.e. more than three and a half years and his psychology is being affected adversely, therefore, requested to set aside orders

¶11

passed by the J.J. Board as well as appellate court and allow the criminal revision.

¶12

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

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State, 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.

¶14

Accordingly, the orders passed by Juvenile Justice Board dated 17.10.2022 and the appellate court dated 21.11.2022 are, hereby, set aside and present criminal revision is hereby, allowed .

¶15

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 :-

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

Order Date :- 26.7.2023 Suraj Srivastav

¶21

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

X Juvenile 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Juvenile X Minor Vs State of U.P. Another

X Juvenile Vs State of U.P.

X (Juvenile) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Another

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