Allowed

X- Juvenile v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2024CRLA/1470/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted interim bail to a minor appellant accused under the POCSO Act and IPC. Relying on major inconsistencies regarding the victim's age, discrepancies in the FIR date, and lack of medical corroboration for specific allegations, the court directed the trial court to fix reasonable sureties and report on the child's counseling and socioeconomic status.

What did the court decide?

Interim bail granted pending trial on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including prohibition on tampering with evidence and appearance before the trial court.

X- Juvenile vs State of Up and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 6 Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1 of 2024

¶2

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1470 of 2024 Appellant :- X- Juvenile Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Nirankari,Javed Alam,Manu Srivastava,Yashaswin Venugopal Bajpai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Nirbhay Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Matter is taken up in the revised call .

¶6

In pursuance of the Court's order dated 12.12.2024 District Probation Officer, Kasganj, Shri Vinod Joshi is present in Court.

¶7

Shri Chandan Agrawal, learned AGA for the State contends that the police authorities in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46998 of 2020 ( Junaid Vs State of U.P. and another ) reported at 2021 (6) ADJ 511 and with a view to implement the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012 read with POCSO Rules, 2020, have served the bail application upon the victim/legal guardian as well as upon the CWC.

¶8

By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Criminal Bail No. 2672 of 2023 in S.C. No. 1133 of 2023 Case Crime No. 203 of 2023 at Police Station-Patiyali, District-Kasganj under Sections 328, 363, 366, 376D, 506 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act and Section 67A of I.T. Act.

¶9

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 03.01.2024.

¶10

The following arguments made by Shri Yashaswin Venugopal Bajpai, learned counsel, Shri Manu Srivastava, learned counsel and Ms. Vishakha Pandey Bajpai, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Sudhir Kumar Patel, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Nirbhay Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Shri Chandan Agrawal, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of interim bail:

¶11

The victim was wrongly shown as a minor of 15 years in the F.I.R. only to falsely implicate the applicant under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and cause his imprisonment.

¶12

2.The age of the victim set out in the prosecution case is refuted in light of the judgement of this Court in Monish Vs. State of U.P. and others ( Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55026 of 2021 ) reported at 2024 (6) ADJ 361 and on the following grounds:

¶13

(i) There are material contradictions in the age of the victim as recorded in various prosecution documents.

¶14

(ii) The age of the victim was incorrectly got registered in the school records by the victim's parents to give her an advantage in life. There is no lawful basis for the age

¶15

related entry of the victim in the school records. The school records disclosing her age as 15 years are unreliable.

¶16

(iii) The victim in her statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that she is 15 years of age.

¶17

(iv) Medico-legal examination (not the age determination test) records that the victim is about 14 years of age.

¶18

(v) The medical report sent by the Chief Medical Officer determining the age of the victim opines that she is 19 years of age. The victim is in fact a major.

¶19

The applicant is a minor.

¶20

The F.I.R. is the result of opposition of the victim's family to the said relationship and has been lodged to deflect attention from the victim.

¶21

As per the prosecution case set out in the F.I.R. the incident occurred on 10.05.2023. The F.I.R. was got lodged on 13.07.2023.

¶22

Delay in lodgement of the F.I.R. in the facts of this case is fatal to the prosecution case.

¶23

There are several discrepancies in the date of the alleged incident in the F.I.R., the statement of the first informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where he states that the incident infact occurred on 10.05.2022. Similarly, the victim has made contrary statements in regard to the date

¶24

of the incident under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. wherein the date is set at 10.05.2022 and 10.05.2023 respectively.

¶25

False and aggravated allegations were made by the victim against the applicant in her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. at the behest of her parents only to save the failing prosecution case.

¶26

The victim in the said statements stated that she was given a sedative drink. She was rendered semiconscious after consuming said beverage. She rode pillion on the motorcycle being driven by the said Sumit and reached at a temple. She was forced to get married to the said Sumit at a temple where the applicant had captured videos of the event.

¶27

The victim was never confined or bound down in any manner. The victim was present at public places. She did not raise an alarm nor did she resist the applicant. Her conduct shows that she was a consenting party.

¶28

No medical evidence/blood report disclosing the presence of noxious substance in the blood or consumption of a sedative drink which would render the victim semiconscious has been produced by the prosecution.

¶29

Major inconsistencies in the statements of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C., as

¶30

well as the recitals in the F.I.R. discredit the prosecution case.

¶31

Medical evidence to corroborate commission of rape by the applicant with the victim has not been produced by the prosecution.

¶32

The applicant did not capture or circulate any indecent photographs or video of the victim. No such videos were recovered from the applicant.

¶33

Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence.

¶34

The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶35

The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶36

In this wake, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on interim bail.

¶37

Let the applicant- X-Juvenile be released on interim bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶38

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶39

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶40

The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023).

¶41

The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant.

¶42

The District Probation Officer, Kasganj shall frame reports after visiting the Observation Home at Agra and meeting the child. The district administration at Agra shall give service of a counsellor to the minor. District Probation Officer, Kasganj shall also bring the counsellor report in the record.

¶43

A copy of this order be sent to the District Legal Services Authority, Kasganj. The DLSA, Kasganj to coordinate with the local administration at Agra for implementation of this order.

¶44

The District Probation Officer shall submit a report by the next date of listing. The report shall be prepared with

¶45

following details.

¶46