Allowed

X (Juvenile) Accused in Case Crime No. 211/2023 Thru. His Mother v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 May 2024CRLR/527/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Juvenile accused in a gang-rape case under POCSO, IPC and SC/ST Act sought bail after the Juvenile Justice Board and appellate court rejected his applications. Noting two FIRs by the victim's parents, bail already granted to a co-accused, and acquittal of another juvenile, the court allowed the revision and released him on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 09.04.2024 and 28.03.2024 set aside; juvenile to be released on bail on personal bond with two solvent relative sureties, with guardian undertakings, monthly Probation Officer reporting a

X (Juvenile) Accused in Case Crime No. 211/2023 Thru. His… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:54332

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 527 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- X (Juvenile) Accused In Case Crime No. 211/2023 Thru. His Mother

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

¶6

Counsel for Revisionist :- Dheeraj Awasthi,Raja Ram Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA learned counsel appearing for respondents no.1, 3 and 4.

¶9

Despite notice having been issued to respondent no.2 and as per the office report dated 03.07.2024 the same having been served personally on respondent no.2, nobody responds on her behalf consequently the Court proceeds to hear and decide the matter.

¶10

Instant revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2015') has been filed against the order dated 09.04.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Unnao in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2024 as well as the order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in Bail Application No.10 of 2024 in Case Crime No.211 of 2023 under Sections 376D, 506, 34 IPC, Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2012') and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1989'), Police Station Maurawan, District Unnao.

¶11

The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that initially a first information report dated 14.02.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-8 to the revision, was lodged by the father of the victim against three unknown persons of having committed

¶12

an offence under the provisions of the Section 376D IPC as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, 2012 against his daughter. The date of incident indicated in the said FIR is 13.02.2022.

¶13

Subsequent thereto, the mother of the alleged victim has lodged an FIR on 02.05.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the revision, alleging of an incident having occurred on 31.12.2021 with her daughter in which five persons have been named of which the revisionist (juvenile) is a named person. The FIR was lodged for the offences 376D, 506 and 34 IPC, Section 3 and 4 of the Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989.

¶14

The contention is that the District Probation Officer vide his report, a copy of which is Annexure-12 to the revision, has indicated that there is every scope of the juvenile improving provided he is given due counseling.

¶15

It is contended that the Board vide order dated 28.03.2024, a copy of which is part of the revision, rejected the bail application of the revisionist which order in turn has been affirmed with the dismissal of the appeal vide order dated 09.04.2024, a copy of which is part of the revision, by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Unnao, in Criminal Appeal No.17 of 20204.

¶16

The argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that apart from the fact that two separate FIRs have been lodged by the father and mother of the victim respectively on 14.02.2022 and 02.05.2023 in which initially there were no named persons which has subsequently been improved upon by naming the alleged perpetrators, the other aspect is that this Court vide order dated 08.02.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1099 of 2024 in re: Ranjeet Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, a copy of which is Annexure-10 to the revision, has already granted bail to a co-accused of the FIR dated 02.05.2023 after considering lodging of two FIRs.

¶17

The further contention is that seeing the shifting stance of the parents of the victim and no reasons emerging as to why two separate FIRs have been lodged, the revisionist, who is a juvenile, is entitled for being released on bail even considering the report of the District Probation Officer.

¶18

On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but has not disputed the aforesaid facts.

¶19

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the records, it emerges that two FIRs have been lodged by the parents of the victim on 14.02.2022 and 02.05.2023. No reasons emerge as to why separate FIRs have been lodged by the parents of the victim.

¶20

Apart from this, one of the co-accused of the FIR dated 02.05.2023 in which juvenile had also been named has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08.02.2024. Further, another juvenile, who was also a named accused in the FIR dated 14.02.2022 has also been acquitted by the learned trial court vide order dated 03.12.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-9 to the revision.

¶21

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the revision is allowed. The orders dated 09.04.2024 and 28.03.2024 are set aside.

¶22

Let the revisionist-Juvenile be released on bail in Case Crime No.211 of 2023 upon his guardian furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Board concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶23

(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;

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

(iv) The District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the juvenile and regularly draw up his social

¶27

investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board concerned.

¶28

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.

¶29

Order Date :- 7.8.2024

¶30

A. Katiyar

¶31

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

X (Juvenile) Accused in Case Crime No. 211/2023 Thru. His Mother v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

X (Juvenile) Accused in Case Crime No. 211/2023 Thru. His Mother v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Anari Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Rameshwar Prasad Maurya and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Cooperative Lko. and Others

Sanjeev Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Horticulture Food Processing Lko. and 2 Others

Ajmat Husain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shree Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Roli Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Rural Development Lko. and 6 Others