Juvenile X v. State of U.P. and 3 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court heard a criminal revision against a bail rejection order in a rape case involving a juvenile. The Court observed that despite medical opinion on vaginal intercourse, evidence of genital assault was present. The revision was rejected upholding the lower courts' order.
What did the court decide?
The criminal revision filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act was rejected.
What the court decided
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:147317
Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2371 of 2024
Revisionist :- Juvenile X Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Anuj Bajpai Counsel for Opposite Party :- Alok Sharma,G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
- Heard Sri Anuj Bajpai, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record. Sri Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/first informant is not present even when the matter has been taken up in the revised list.
- The present revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred by the revisionist-Juvenile X against the judgement and order dated 6.2.2024, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.8, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Appeal No.004 of 2024 (Juvenile X Vs. State of U.P. and another) in Case Crime No. 468 of 2023, u/s 376AB, 506 IPC and 5 (Da) POCSO Act, P.S. Sindholi, District Shahjahanpur arising out of order dated 18.12.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Shahjahanpur in Bail Application No.106 of 2023 in aforesaid case crime number by which Juvenile Justice Board has rejected the bail application of the revisionist and learned Appellate Court has affirmed the bail rejection order.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revisionist, named in the FIR and linked by depositions, could be acquitted/revised against the bail rejection order.
Whether the medical evidence of genital assault, despite absence of signs of vaginal intercourse, supports the prosecution case.
Coram
Samit Gopal
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · September
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLR/2371/2024
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court