Allahabad High Court
Suraj Kumar Thru. His Father Suman Chand vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko ... on 5 October, 2023
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:64263 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1067 of 2023 Revisionist :- Suraj Kumar Thru. His Father Suman Chand Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Deo Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Adarsh Srivastava, Advocate on behalf of private respondent/informant is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for private respondent/informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. The present criminal revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice Act against the order dated 5.9.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, Children Court, Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.56 of 2023 under Sections 366, 376 I.P.C., Police Station Kheri, Lakhimpur Kheri.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case and in jail since 28.03.2023. He further submitted that the revisionist was minor at the time of alleged incident and the victim was major. He further submitted that victim left her house and also enticed the revisionist, and thereafter, they went with each other. He further submitted that on the basis of incorrect facts, application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the the informant of the present case with the allegation that the revisionist and his family members forcibly abducted the victim.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that during the course of investigation, statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which, she categorically stated that her marriage was already solemnized with one Balram S/o Babu, R/o Khaniyapur, P.S. Laharpur, District- Sitapur when she was aged about 15 years, thereafter, it came into her knowledge that her husband has already deserted his first wife and after giving some money to her mother, he entered into the marriage with the victim, thereafter, after knowing the truth, victim decided not to go to her in-laws' house and she stayed at her parents' house for the period of three years, in the meantime, she met with the revisionist, as she was victimized by her family members byway of beatings, after Diwali, on Bhaiduj, she went to the house of revisionist and stayed there with him for about seven days, and when her parents came to take her back, she refused to go with them and said that she would reside with the revisionist, thereafter, in the month of November, 2022, she entered into the marriage with the revisionist.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that at the time of medico-legal examination of victim, she stated before the doctor that she married revisionist on her own will and she was carrying pregnancy of four months. He further submitted that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she reiterated the narration made in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as the said statement was recorded on 23.03.2023, thereafter, she delivered a son. He further submitted that without considering the aforesaid facts, revisionist was taken into custody.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the bail application of the revisionist was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board without considering the provisions of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act as well as the statements of victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the Appellate Court also rejected the appeal filed by the revisionist. He further submitted that the D.P.O. report is vague and without any foundation. He further submitted that the victim is residing with the parents of the revisionist along with her child, therefore, revision is liable to be allowed by setting aside the orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as Appellate Court.
8. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of revisionist and submitted that after detailed investigation, charge sheet was filed but he does not dispute this fact that the victim was major at the time of incident and she has not supported the prosecution version.
9. Learned counsel for the informant conceded the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that the victim is residing at the house of revisionist and now she is having one son of revisionist and does not want to prosecute the revisionist.
10. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of application as well as other relevant documents, as it is evident that the victim was major at the time of incident and she has not supported the prosecution version, as victim is residing at the house of the revisionist and now she is having one son of revisionist, in such circumstances, present application is allowed and order dated 28.3.2023 passed by Child Welfare Committee as well as order 5.9.2023 passed by the Special Judge Children Court, Lakhimpur Kheri are hereby set aside.
11. Let revisionist, namely, Suraj Kumar Thru. His Father Suman Chand, be released on bail in Case Crime No.56 of 2023 U/s 365, 323, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kheri, District- Lakhimpur Kheri on furnishing of a personal bond alongwith an undertaking on behalf of revisionist by his legal guardian/grand father to the effect that he will not permit the revisionist to come in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice and provide no occasion to the revisionist whereby his release on bail would defeat the ends of justice, by his legal guardian/grand father and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(1) Revisionist will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail.
(2) Revisionist will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court.
(3) Revisionist shall remain present, in person, before the Board on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case; (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Board that absence of the revisionist is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Board to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
12. Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and Board will be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 5.10.2023 V. Sinha