Allahabad High Court
X Juvenile vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 2 January, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:496
Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5245 of 2023
Revisionist :- X Juvenile
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Amit Kumar Malviya,Brij Bhushan Upadhyay,Rishi Kesh Malviya
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pushpendra Kumar,Ramdhan
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Rishi Kesh Malviya, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ramdhan, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the records.
3. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.7.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO ACT), Hathras in Criminal Appeal No.44/2023 (Narendra Kumar alias Kanhaiya Vs. State of U.P. and another) dismissing the appeal and affirming the order dated 16.1.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Hathras in Case Crime No.399 of 2022 (State Vs. Narendra Kumar alias Kanhaiya) u/s 376-AB, 452 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Sikandra Rau, District Hathras rejecting the bail application of the juvenile.
4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 2.8.2022 by Gajendra Kumar against the revisionist with the allegation that on 2.8.2022 at about 9.30 a.m. his wife and daughter aged about 3 months were at home. His wife went to fetch water and in the meantime revisionist who was his neighbour aged about 13 years came inside the house and bolted the door from inside. When his wife returned back, she found the child crying. On knocking the door, it was not opened on which Kuldeep, his younger brother scalled the wall and went inside and opened the door and saw the revisionist running away from the back side. He was tried to be apprehended but he somehow saved himself. His daughter has received injuries in her private part which is bleeding. A report be lodged and action be taken.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the revisionist is a juvenile and is in custody since 6.8.2022. It is further submitted that the revisionist has no criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that there is absolutely no evidence against the revisionist and the matter has been falsely lodged against him since there is a dispute with regards to land between the first informant and the family of the revisionist as has been reported by the District Probation Officer in his report. The revisionist be thus enlarged on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the revisionist is named in the FIR and was seen running away from the house after which the victim was found to be lying in an injured condition and was bleeding from her private part. It is further submitted that the victim was opined to be 3 months to 6 months of age. In the medical examination, the doctor found private parts of the victim to be injured and tear and redness was present along with blood. The same corroborates the prosecution story. The revision be thus dismissed.
7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records it is evident that the revisionist is named in the FIR and there are allegations against him. The victim is 3 months old child who was found to have received injuries in her private parts. The injuries are such which corroborates the incident.
8. The present criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Samit Gopal, J.)
Order Date :- 2.1.2025
Gaurav Kuls
