Allahabad High Court
Minor X vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 10 January, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5293
Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2706 of 2023
Revisionist :- Minor X
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shaheen Bano,Shahnawaz Khan,Vishwanath Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vishwanath Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
2. The present revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been filed by the revisionist- Minor X with the prayer to allow the revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 18.03.2023 passed by Additional District and Special Sessions Judge, POCSO Act-I, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2023 (Minor X Vs. State of U.P.) as well as the judgment and order dated 17.01.2023 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur in case crime No. 366 of 2022 (State Vs. Minor X) under Section 376-AB IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur rejecting the bail application/release of the child in conflict with law under the guardianship of his mother and with a further prayer to release the child on bail in the aforesaid case.
3. Time for counter affidavit was granted to learned counsel for the State on 22.05.2023. It is about one year and 8 months since then but no counter affidavit has been filed till date.
4. Notice was issued to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 vide order dated 10.08.2023. As per office report dated 12.09.2023 notice has been served to the opposite party no.2 through legal heir and opposite party no.3 through CJM concerned. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2/first informant despite service of notice.
5. The present revision is pending since 2023 and no counter affidavit has been filed by the State. The Court thus proceeds to hear the matter.
6. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 05.11.2022 by Smt. Khushbu against the revisionist alleging therein that she had sent her 6 years old daughter to take spices from neighbouring shop where the revisionist took her inside, kissed her and after taking out of her pant, sexually assaulted her. The incident is of 05.11.2022 at about 06:30 pm.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the revisionist is a minor. It is submitted that the doctor conducted the medical examination of the victim and found hymen to be intact which is suggestive that there is no sexual assault on her. It is further submitted that there was a dispute with regard to the payment of money of the items purchased from the shop of the revisionist by the family members of the victim which was the reason for false implication. It is submitted that the revisionist has no criminal history, para 20 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. The revisionist is in jail since 06.11.2022. It is submitted that as such the present revision deserves to be allowed.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail in the revision. It is submitted that the victim is a child aged about 6 years. It is further submitted that the doctor conducting the medical examination found redness and tenderness in her private parts which is suggestive of sexual assault on her. It is submitted that the present revision be dismissed.
9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the victim is a child aged about 6 years. The medical examination shows injuries on her private parts, it cannot be said that there was no sexual assault on her. The revisionist is named in the FIR, statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. It cannot be said that the revisionist was not knowing regarding the act he was doing and the consequences of it. The incident is grave in nature. No case for interference is made out.
10. The present revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.1.2025
M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.)
