Allowed

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

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2024CRLR/2282/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision under the Juvenile Justice Act challenging refusal of bail, noting inconsistencies between the FIR and victim's statements. The impugned orders were set aside and bail was granted to the minor revisionist with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the minor revisionist subject to furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and compliance with strict conditions regarding conduct, education, and supervision by the District Probat

Minor X vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:142178

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2282 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Minor X Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Mansoor Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Mansoor Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on records.

¶7

Vide order dated 13.05.2024 notice was issued to the opposite party no.4. As per the office report dated 01.07.2024 a report regarding service of notice has been received. The report of June 2024 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur is on record which states that notice has been served on the opposite party no.4 / first informant. Despite service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.4 / first informant.

¶8

The present revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred by the revisionist- Minor X, against the order dated 10.04.2024 passed by Additional District & Special Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 36 / 2024 (Juvenile 'A' Vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 21.03.2024 passed by learned Members and Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur, arising out of Case Crime No. 680 of 2023, under Sections 376, 120-B, 506 I.P.C., and Section 67 I.T. Act, Police Station Chiluataal, District Gorakhpur, with a further prayer to grant bail to the juvenile revisionist in the aforesaid case, during the pendency of his trial before the court concerned.

¶9

The first information report of the matter was lodged on 03.12.2023 by the victim herself against the revisionist and another co-accused under Sections 506 I.P.C. & Section 67 I.T. Act with the allegation that the revisionist and co-accused live near her house. They used to threaten her and used to send her videos to other places. After the death of her father they came to her house and since the last one month they are troubling her. They are threatening her also. The revisionist told her that if she does not talk to him he will throw acid on her and the other co-accused is threatening her of sending her videos to other places.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the victim being the first informant is a major girl aged about 18 years. It is submitted that the victim was

¶11

produced before the doctor for her medical examination wherein she denied her external and internal examination. It is submitted that after lodging of the first information report during investigation in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. for the first time she states of the revisionist committing rape upon her around two years back and recording a video of the same. It is submitted that the same would go to show that the allegations are totally afterthought and the first information report has been lodged with malafide intentions. It is submitted that in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she gives a different version and states that the revisionist on a false promise to marry has been establishing physical relationship with her since last two years but in the same she states that since last 1½ years she is not talking to him and their friendship lasted only for six months. It is submitted that the victim is not consistent in her version. The revisionist has no criminal history as stated in paragraph 31 & 47 of the affidavit and is in observation home since 05.12.2023.

¶12

Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶13

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the allegation of rape was not mentioned in the first information report which subsequently finds place in the statement of the victim recorded during investigation. The victim is a major girl. During investigation she states that the revisionist committed rape upon her two years back and subsequently in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she states that he established physical relationship on a false promise to marry.

¶14

The present revision is allowed . The impugned judgement and order dated 10.04.2024 passed by Additional District & Special Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Gorakhpur and the order dated 21.03.2024 passed by learned Members and Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur, in the aforesaid case are hereby set aside. The bail application of the revisionist is allowed.

¶15

Let the revisionist- (Minor X) through his father and natural guardian be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his father furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur, subject to the following conditions:

¶16

(i) that the natural guardian father 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 be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.

¶17

(ii) that the guardian father will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juvenile will be placed in a school and encouraged to his studies and not allow to waste his time in unproductive and mere recreational pursuits.

¶18

(iii) The revisionist and his father will report to the District Probation Officer on the

¶19

first Monday of every month with effect from the first Monday of the month next after release from custody, and, if during any calendar month the first Monday falls on a holiday then on the following working day.

¶20

(iv) The District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the revisionist and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board concerned on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board determines.

¶21

Order Date :- 3.9.2024 AS Rathore

¶22

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minor X 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Prasad and 2 Others vs Central Bureau of Nvestigation

Mohammad Shahid vs State of U.P.

Subhan Ali vs Union of India and 2 Others

Anupam Pandey vs State of Up and Another

Natthu Lal and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another

Jay Nath Adiwasi vs State of U.P.