Allahabad High Court
Lokendra Kumar (Juvenile) vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 July, 2021
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 213 of 2021 Revisionist :- Lokendra Kumar (Juvenile) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Virendra Kumar Gupta,Arunesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Arunesh Singh, learned counsel for revisionist, learned AGA representing opposite party 1 and Mr. Anil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel representing opposite party No.2.
This criminal revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been filed against order dated 13.10.2020 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Mahoba in Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2020, (Lokendra Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of order dated 19.8.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board in Case Crime No.126 of 2020, under Sections 376-D, 342, 506 I.P.C., under Section 6 Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and under Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1) Dha, 3(2) (5-Ka), 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Act, P.S. Kabrai, District Mahoba whereby a revisionist has been denied bail.
At the very outset, learned counsel for revisionist contends that statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded before court below. Same has been brought on record by means of a supplementary affidavit dated 21.6.2021.
On the basis of aforesaid, it is submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that prosecutrix has not supported prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR. Once prosecutrix has denied occurrence then there is no reason to detain revisionist. Consequently, present revision is liable to be allowed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed this revision. However, he could not dispute the submissions urged by learned counsel for revisionist as well as facts noted above.
Having heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned AGA for the State, learned counsel for the informant and upon perusal of the statements of prosecutrix, this Court finds that prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR. The prosecutrix has denied occurrence alleged to have occurred in which modesty of the prosecutrix is alleged to have been dislodged.
Accordingly, present criminal revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned orders dated 13.10.2020 and 19.8.2020 are hereby quashed.
Let the revisionist-applicant, named above, be released on bail in this case on furnishing an undertaking by guardian father that he will take proper care over the revisionist-applicant and he will not allow him to go in the company of known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and he will also file a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.
Order Date :- 14.7.2021 piyush