Rahul Kumar Thru. Mother Babli vs State Of U.P. & Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 3204 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 16
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 603 of 2020
 

 
Revisionist :- Rahul Kumar Thru. Mother Babli
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajiv Kumar Bajpai
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred against the order dated 25.08.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.215 of 2020 arising out of FIR No.230 of 2019, under Sections 376, 352, 452, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act.

Despite service of notice on opposite party no.2, no-one has put in appearance on her behalf to oppose the present revision petition.

The FIR in question came to be registered against accused revisionist on 19.06.2020 in respect of an incident which allegedly took place on 03.06.2019 at 0.00 hours. The allegation against the accused revisionist is that on 03.06.2019 at around midnight when the prosecutrix was sleeping inside her house and her grand father was sleeping outside, he entered the house of prosecutrix and tried to commit rape upon her. Somehow on raising alarm, the grand father of the prosecutrix woke up and on this the accused revisionist fled away from the house of prosecutrix. The incident allegedly took place on 03.06.2019, but the FIR was registered on 19.06.2019.

The prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. did not allege about rape by the accused revisionist. However, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 31.08.2019 she has made allegation regarding rape by the accused revisionist. There is a report from the King George Medical University, Lucknow regarding the "Intelligence Quotient" level (I.Q.) of the prosecutrix and the said report, which has been placed on record as Annexure 7 to the revision, states that her I.Q. level is "low average intelligence". Prosecutrix was about 13 years of age at the time of incident and the present revisionist was around 14 years. The Juvenile Justice Court as well as Appellate court have rejected the bail application of the accused applicant after considering the report from the Probationary Officer.

Considering the aforesaid fact and the fact that the accused revisionist has been in jail since 02.11.2019, it would be appropriate to enlarge the revisionist on bail and, thus, the impugned judgment and order dated 25.08.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.215 of 2020 is set aside.

The revision is allowed. The accused revisionist shall be enlarged on bail on terms and conditions as may be fixed by the concerned court.

Order Date :- 8.3.2021

Anand Sri./-