Shakti Singh (Minor) vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 10762 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 88
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 530 of 2021
 

 
Revisionist :- Shakti Singh (Minor)
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Santosh Kumar Dubey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.10.2020 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bhadohi in Case No.8 of 2020 (State Vs. Shakti Singh), arising out of Case Crime No.3 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Suriyawan, District Bhadohi, and impugned judgment and order dated 4.12.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.2, Bhadohi Gyanpur in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2020 (Shakti Singh Vs. State of U.P.).

It is submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that revisionist is juvenile and has been falsely implicated in this case. The incident was alleged to be occurred on 10.11.2018 whereas the F.I.R. was lodged after about two months on 4.1.2019. As per report of Chief Medical Officer the age of victim is assessed as 18 years. The statements of victim were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. in which there are severe contradictions. It is further submitted that in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it has been stated by victimthat victim without raising any alarm went to Varanasi and thereafter to Nagpur which itself shows that she is consenting party and since the victim is major no offence is made out against the applicant. He argues that admittedly, the revisionist is a juvenile and while deciding the bail application, the Juvenile Justice Board has solely considered the gravity of the offence alleged and had not even considered the requirement of the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (in short 'the Act'). He argues that the Appellate Court had committed the same error in dismissing the appeal.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer.

I have perused the orders rejecting the bail application and the appeal, who do not record any reasons as required in terms of the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Act.

Considering the age of the revisionist who is minor and in custody since 1.7.2019, the revision deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned judgment and orders dated 16.10.2020 and 4.12.2020 are set aside. The bail application of the revisionist is also allowed.

Let revisionist Shakti Singh be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Juvenile Justice Board concerned.

Order Date :- 24.8.2021

Kpy