Allahabad High Court
Anil Kumar Thru. His Mother Smt. ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 6 April, 2022
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 916 of 2021
Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Thru. His Mother Smt. Raj Kumari
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Gulam Rabbani
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Although notices have been served upon opposite party No. 2 but no one appeared on his behalf. Heard counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present revision has been preferred against the orders, being judgment and order dated 08.12.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge -III POCSO Act, Faizabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2021 (Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.P.) affirming the judgment of the Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad dated 18.11.2021 by which the Board denied to release the revisionist on bail in Case Crime No. 48 of 2021, under Section 376 I.P.C., Police Station Ram Janm Bhoomi, District Ayodhya.
Counsel for the revisionist has argued that the complaint was filed by the father of the revisionist on 13.04.2021 against the parents of the opposite party No. 2 who were putting pressure and threatening the father of the revisionist to implicate and to face dire consequences in case the complaint is not withdrawn due to which the revisionist has been implicated. Counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that after the said complaint, the F.I.R. has been lodged on 01.07.2021 making allegation of rape. It is admitted case in the F.IR. that the marriage of the revisionist was fixed with the prosecutrix but the same could not be materialized and it has been further argued that out of malafide intention, the revisionist has been implicated. Counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the age of the prosecutrix is 22 years whereas the revisionist has been declared juvenile declaring his age as 16. years 10 months. He has further submitted, that in the medical report, the concerned doctor puts note to the effect that no definite opinion can be given. It is further submitted that the revisionist is in jail since 13.08.2021 and has no previous criminal antecedents.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not point out anything material to substantiate his contention and rebut the submissions advanced by the counsel for the revisionist.
In view of the aforesaid, the criminal revision is liable to be allowed and the revisionist be enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned orders dated 08.12.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge -III POCSO Act, Faizabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2021 (Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.P.) affirming the judgment of the Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad dated 18.11.2021 by which the Board denied to release the revisionist on bail in Case Crime No. 48 of 2021, under Section 376 I.P.C., Police Station Ram Janm Bhoomi, District Ayodhya, are set aside.
The revisionist, namely, Anil Kumar is directed to be put in the custody of his mother and be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board subject to the condition that the parent/guardian of the revisionist will take care of his education and betterment and will not allow to indulge him in any criminal activity and will keep constant check on his activities. Both the sureties are directed to be close relatives of the revisionist juvenile.
Order Date :- 6.4.2022
Arun K. Singh
