Allahabad High Court
Juvenile X Juvenile Aged About 17 Years ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 November, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 64 of 2021 Revisionist :- Juvenile X Juvenile Aged About 17 Years Son Of Y Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd.Sartaz Ahmad Siddiqui,Ajai Kumar,Wahaj Ahmad Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Kumar Dubey Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. Heard Sri Ajai Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Abhay Krishna, Advocate holding brief for Sri Ram Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 08.09.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bijnor and the order dated 21.10.2020 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bijnor in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2020 by which the order of the Juvenile Justice Board was affirmed and bail to the juvenile was declined in a matter arising out of Case Crime No.123 of 2020, under sections- 292, 376(D)(B) I.P.C. and section- 67 I.T. Act and sections- 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Afzalgarh, District- Bijnor.
4. As per prosecution case, daughter of informant student of class-VI was raped by present revisionist-juvenile on the pretext of assurance of marriage to the victim; she was sexually assaulted by the juvenile and two other persons and a video clip was also made of the act; on disclosure of these facts, the elders of the village intervened and the matter was resolved between the two sides and it was assured by the juvenile that he shall marry the victim and shall delete that video clip; however till now he has been avoiding the nikaah and also published the video on social media and whatsapp. The F.I.R. was lodged after more than six months on 18.06.2020 about the incident which took place on 19.12.2019. The victim was medically examined; no external or internal injury was found on her person; in the medical examination done for determination of her age, she was found to be aged 19 years; during investigation, she gave statements under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. supporting the allegations made in the F.I.R. as far as sexual assault was concerned, however the statements are silent as to giving assurance of marriage by the juvenile or doing the act on false assurance of getting married to her.
5. Finding the accused a minor, the matter was brought before the Juvenile Justice Board. In an age determination inquiry, he was found aged 17 years and 5 months on the date of occurrence. His bail application was dismissed by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appeal preferred on his behalf was also dismissed. Now, the juvenile through his natural guardian/father is before this Court.
6. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that besides ignoring the mandate of Section-12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 other relevant facts and circumstances of the case were altogether ignored by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court. It is contended that the juvenile had no criminal history and criminal tendencies and that there was no possibility of him getting in association with any criminal or getting exposed to any physical, moral or psychological danger. The courts below also ignored the fact that the case is of highly suspicious nature as the F.I.R. was lodged after more than six months of the alleged incident. It is also said that infact the matter relates to marriage dispute between the two sides and F.I.R. has been lodged because the marriage could not be settled with the juvenile.
7. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 have opposed this criminal revision.
8. This fact is not disputed that in this case, the F.I.R. was lodged after a long delay and that no injuries were found on the person of the victim. This fact is also not disputed that as per the social investigation report, no fact adverse to his release was found against the revisionist and that the revisionist is in detention since 09.06.2020, i.e., about two and a half years now. This fact is also not disputed that one of the other co-accused, who was also found juvenile and was assigned a similar role in the incident has been granted bail in Criminal Revision No.407 of 2021 by an order dated 26.11.2021. In my view, there has not been any material to even remotely suggest that release of the offender will bring the case within the restrictive clauses as given in proviso to Section-12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
9. In view of the above and taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, present revision is allowed and the order dated 21.10.2020 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bijnor and dated 08.09.2020 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bijnor are hereby set-aside.
10. Let the revisionist, Minor "X", through his natural guardian/father- "Y", R/o Village- Shergarh, Police Station- Afzalgarh, District- Bijnor be released on bail in Case Crime No.123 of 2020, under sections- 292, 376(D)(B) I.P.C. and section- 67 I.T. Act and sections- 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Afzalgarh, District- Bijnor upon his father furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Bijnor subject to the following conditions:
(i) that the natural guardian/father- "Y" 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;
(iv) The District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the revisionist and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board/court concerned on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board/court concerned may determine.
11. The trial court shall not be influenced by any finding or observation made in this order.
Order Date :- 25.11.2022 Saif