Allowed

X (Juvenile) Thru. His Brother v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2024CRLR/94/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision allowing bail for a juvenile accused of rape and hanging. Court set aside lower bail rejection due to lack of eyewitnesses, late FIR, and social report not warranting continued detention.

What did the court decide?

Revisionist released on bail with personal bond, two solvent sureties, undertaking against criminal association, pursuit of studies, and monthly reporting to the Probation Officer.

X (Juvenile) Thru. His Brother vs State of U.P. Thru… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:13155

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 94 of 2024 Revisionist :- X (Juvenile) Thru. His Brother Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ishuk Ali Yusuf Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ishuk Ali Yusuf, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anant Pratap Singh, the learned A.G.A appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record.

¶6

The learned A.G.A has informed that intimation of the revision has been given to the informant.

¶7

The instant criminal revision has been filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, challenging the validity of order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hardoi rejecting the bail application of the revisionist and the judgment and order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Hardoi, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 69/2023 filed by the revisionist against rejection of his bail application.

¶8

4.The opposite party no.2 had lodged an F.I.R No. 234/2023 on 10.06.2023 against four persons, including the revisionist, stating that while the complainant's daughter aged about 15 years was returning from a filed at about 7:00 pm on 04.04.2023, the accused persons caught hold of her, raped her and hanged her from a tree. A co-accused Sewakram went to the complainant's house on 13.04.2023 and heard abuses.

¶9

The post mortem examination report mention an oblique ligature mark on neck of the dead body with a gap of 2 cm and the cause of death has been opined to be asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. It was reported that the deceased was having a 15 weeks pregnancy. The

¶10

age of the deceased was opined to be 19 years. Upon a second post mortem examination of the deceased conducted after the dead body had partially decomposed, it was opined that the hyoid bone was intact and, therefore, the cause of death could not be ascertained.

¶11

A copy of the social inquiry report submitted by the District Probation Officer has been annexed with the supplementary affidavit. It does not contain anything which may warrant denial of his release on bail.

¶12

The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist was aged 16 years at the time of incident and the deceased was aged 19 years. The deceased was having 15 weeks pregnancy and there is no allegation of the pregnancy having been caused due to rape committed by the revisionist.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R has been lodged more than two months after the incident; there is no eye-witness of the incident and the revisionist has been implicated on the basis of suspicion; there was no mark of any injury on the dead body as per the post mortem examination report and the social inquiry report does not contain anything warranting continue detention of the juvenile, I am of the view that the revision deserves to be allowed.

¶14

Accordingly, the revision is allowed . The impugned order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hardoi rejecting the bail application of the revisionist and the judgment and order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Hardoi, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 69/2023 are hereby set aside.

¶15

Let the revisionist- X (Juvenile) Thru. His Brother be released on bail in the Case Crime No.234/2023, under Sections 306 and 376-

¶16

D I.P.C, Police Station Mallawan, District Hardoi, 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, Hardoi, subject to the following conditions:-

¶17

(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;

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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, Hardoi.

¶21

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.

¶22

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 13.2.2024/Preeti.

¶24

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

X (Juvenile) Thru. His Brother v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

X (Juvenile) Thru. His Brother 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rohit Jain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Juvenile a Thru. His Mother Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Abdul Rauf Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Noorur Rahman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shakeel @ Mohd. Sakeel Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Mukesh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another