Allowed

Master X Thru. His Father in Case Crime No. 374/2023 v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2024/50/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision regarding bail rejection for a juvenile accused under POCSO and IPC sections, the Allahabad High Court allowed the revision, setting aside previous orders and granting bail with strict supervision conditions.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed. Impugned orders set aside. Juvenile released on bail with guardian bond, sureties, and conditions to study and report to Probation Officer.

Master X Thru. His Father in Case Crime No… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:23110

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 50 of 2024 Revisionist :- Master X Thru. His Father In Case Crime No. 374/2023 Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ramakar Shukla, the learned counsel for the revisionist, Ms. Charu Singh, the learned A.G.A appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant criminal revision has been filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, challenging the validity of order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur rejecting the bail application of the revisionist and the judgment and order dated 01.01.2024 passed by the Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Sultanpur, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 151/2023( Dharmendra Nishad vs. State of U.P.) filed by the revisionist against rejection of his bail application.

¶7

The opposite party no.2 had lodged an F.I.R on 05.09.2023 stating that the applicant had enticed away the complainant's daughter aged 14 years in the night of 21.08.2023. She returned on 26.08.2023 and told that the applicant had forcibly committed the misdeed against her.

¶8

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, she stated that the applicant had forcibly taken her away. The medico legal examination report of the victim does not mention any mark of injury or sign of use of force on her body.

¶9

In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, she stated that two other persons were also involved with the applicant

¶10

in commission of the offence.

¶11

The investigating officer has recorded that he has made inquiries from some villagers , who stated that the victim used to talk to the applicant, both of them were minors, the applicant had enticed away the victim and dropped her back after 3-4 days. The other two persons had been falsely implicated.

¶12

The investigating officer also got hold of some communications between the applicant and the victim, which establishes that there was a love affair between them.

¶13

The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith with a material collected during the investigation which has been annexed with the revision itself.

¶14

A copy of the social inquiry report submitted by District Probation Officer has been annexed with the affidavit filed in support of the revision, which mentions that the village pradhan has stated that the applicant is a boy of a good character and similar statement has been given by the neighbours of the revisionist.

¶15

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the revision deserves to be allowed.

¶16

Accordingly, the revision is allowed . The impugned order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur rejecting the bail application of the revisionist and the judgment and order dated 01.01.2024 passed by the Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court NO.1, Sultanpur, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 151/2023 (Dharmendra Nishad vs. State of U.P.) are hereby set aside.

¶17

Let the revisionist- Juvenile 'A' Thru. His Father Kishun @ Banshu @ Ram Kishun be released on bail in the Case Crime No. 374/2023 under Sections 363, 376 I.P.C and Section 3/4 of POCSO

¶18

Act and 3(2)(V) SC/ST(P.A) Act, P.S. Chanda, District Sultanpur, upon his guardian furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur, subject to the following conditions:-

¶19

(i) the natural guardian will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the guardian will ensure that the juvenile will not indulge in any criminal activity;

¶20

(ii) natural guardian 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.

¶21

(iii) juvenile accompanied by his natural guardian, will report to the Probation Officer on the first working day of every calendar month. The D.P.O. shall maintain a diary recording their attendance.

¶22

(iv) The District Probation Officer will keep 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, Sultanpur.

¶23

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court/J.J.Board shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, uninfluenced by any finding or observation whatsoever in this order.

¶24

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶25

Order Date :- 15.3.2024 Preeti.

¶26

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Master X Thru. His Father in Case Crime No. 374/2023 v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Master X Thru. His Father in Case Crime No. 374/2023 v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Master Xxx Thru. His Father Y Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 3 Others

Sangam Kumar Verma @ Sangam Verma Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Avinash Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Adalat Prasad and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Amit Sharma @ Amit Kumar Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Pooja Baranwal and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. and Another