Allahabad High Court
X (Minor) vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 4 November, 2022
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 91
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1411 of 2022
Revisionist :- X (Minor)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Singh,Piyush Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
01. Heard Sri Piyush Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent No.1 and perused the record.
02. This criminal revision has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 04.02.2022 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Sonbhadra and order dated 09.03.2022 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2022 affirming the order of J. J. Board declining bail to the juvenile in case crime no.32 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 (3) AB of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 (2) POCSO Act, P.S. Raipur, District Sonbhadra.
03. As per prosecution case, in the absence of parents of the victim, the juvenile accused enticed the daughter of the informant away on 11.03.2021 at about 2.00 P.M. in the afternoon. As per F.I.R., the informant suspected the hand of juvenile in the incident. F.I.R. was lodged on 15.03.2021 after four days of the incident when she did not return to her house.
04. In her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. the informant said that she is well acquainted with the juvenile accused and they often contacted each other on the mobile phone. When her marriage was being fixed with some other person she protested and asked her parents to get her married to the juvenile but her parents refused, therefore, on the date of incident she called the juvenile on her mobile and asked him to elope with her. They went to the house of sister of the juvenile at Banaras where they got married in a temple. After few days both of them went to Gujrat and they started residing there. One day when they were eating food in a hotel, the police came and arrested them. In her medical examination no external or internal injury was found and in pathological report no spermatozoa was found. Admittedly her medical age is between 16 to 17 years and that of the juvenile accused between 16 to 18 years.
05. I went through the order of the J.J.Board. The J.J.Board after discussing on the points of law was of the view that in case the juvenile is released, he shall fall in the same environment where he was earlier which led to him to criminal tendencies.
06. I went through order of the appellate court. On the basis of social investigation report the appellate court was of the view that he needed counseling by experts so that he is protected from bad elements in the society. In the end J.J. Board as well as appellate court were of the view that if the juvenile is released, he may come in association with criminals or he may be exposed moral, physical or psychological danger.
07. In my view, there has not been sufficient material before the court concerned for drawing inference as drawn by them so as to bring the case within the applicability of provisions of proviso to Section 12 (1) of the J.J.Act. The court concerned altogether ignored the statements given by witnesses which show the incident in a very different light. Taking into account that boy and girl belonged to the same age group between 16-17 years and statement given by her that she wanted to marry him and the fact that the juvenile has no criminal history and is in Juvenile Home since 16.05.2021 about one and half years and that there is nothing in the social investigation report, I am of the view that liberty of bail to him should not be refused.
08. In view of the above, especially, in view of the period of incarceration already undergone, the revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 04.02.2022 passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Sonbhadra and order dated 09.03.2022 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra are hereby set aside.
09. Let the revisionist, minor "X' through his natural guardian/father Ram Briksh Harijan, resident of Village Pauni, P.S. Raipur, District Sonebhadra be released on bail in case crime no.32 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376 (3) AB of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 (2) POCSO Act, P.S. Raipur, District Sonbhadra upon his father Ram Briksh Harijan furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Sonebhadra subject to the following conditions:
(i) that the natural guardian/father Sri Ram Briksh Harijan 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 father will ensure that the juvenile will not indulge in any criminal activity;
(ii) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall also file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court;
Order Date :- 4.11.2022
Asha
