Allahabad High Court
X (Minor) vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 June, 2022
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1444 of 2022
Revisionist :- X (Minor)
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Pankaj
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Pankaj Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 21.3.2022 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO/Juvenile Justice Board, Sonbhadra) dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2022 filed under section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ?Act, 2015?) and affirming the order dated 16.2.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sonbhadra in Case No. 38 of 2021 (State versus Suraj), under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Shahganj, District Sonbhadra.
In spite of service of notice upon opposite party No. 2 as per office report dated 26.5.2022, no body has put in appearance on his behalf nor any counter affidavit has been filed.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He has not committed any offence. The victim herself has stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., that she left her parental home on her own sweet will and volition and joined the company of the revisionist and thereafter, they got married. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further contended that the victim is not minor and according to the medico legal report, her age is about 17-18 years and she would be presumed to be major. No spermatozoa was found in the pathological report and no definite opinion about rape has been given by the doctor.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has further contended that the revisionist is a juvenile and there is no apprehension of or reasonable ground for believing that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to mental, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. Learned counsel further submits that except this, the revisionist has no previous criminal history. The father of the revisionist is giving his undertaking that after release of the revisionist on bail, he will keep him under his custody and look after him properly. There is no report regarding any previous criminal antecedent of family or criminal background of the revisionist. There is no chance of the revisionist to bring him into association with known criminals.
Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that it is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile as he has already been declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sonbhadra vide order dated 31.11.2021. The revisionist was a juvenile aged 16 years 11 months and 15 days on the date of occurrence of the incident. He is in jail since 1.9.2021 in connection with the present case and has completed substantial period of the sentence out of the maximum years institutional incarceration permissible for a juvenile under Section 18 (1) (g) of the Act, 2015 and accordingly, it is prayed that the revision be allowed and the juvenile be released on bail.
Learned AGA on the basis of the instructions received has opposed the prayer for bail and prayed that the revision be dismissed as allegations of rape has been alleged to have been committed on the minor girl. However, the learned AGA could not dispute the fact that the girl/victim according to the medical report is aged about 17-18 years and in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has stated that she joined the company of the revisionist on her own sweet will and volition and later on they got married and that she wants to live with the accused/revisionist. It is also not disputed that the revisionist is a juvenile and has undergone substantial institutional incarceration.
In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order dated 21.3.2022 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, dismissing the Appeal No. 10 of 2022 and the order dated 16.2.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sonbhdara refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Case Crime No. 38 of 2021 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Shahganj, District Sonbhadra are hereby set aside and reserved.
The bail application of the revisionist stands allowed.
Let the revisionist, 'X' through his natural guardian Rama Vishwakarma (father) be released on bail in Case Crime No. 38 of 2021 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Shahganj, District Sonbhadra upon his natural 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, Sonbhadra subject to the following conditions:
(i) That the natural guardian of the revisionist 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 natural guardian will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.
(ii) The revisionist and his natural guardian will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Wednesday of every calendar month commencing with the first Wednesday of July, 2022 and if during any calendar month the first Wednesday falls on a holiday, then on the next following working day.
(iii) The District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the revisionist and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board concerned on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.
However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the court below is directed to make every possible endeavour to conclude the trial of the aforesaid case within a period of four months from today without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
Order Date :- 6.6.2022
Ravi Prakash
