Allahabad High Court
Ikram vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 17 October, 2019
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1900 of 2019 Revisionist :- Ikram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Sajiya Parveen,Kumar Anish Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist Shri Kumar Anish and in opposition, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P Shri Amit Kumar Singh and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.04.2018 passed by Special Judge (Juvenile Court)/(Court No. 8), Firozabad, in Bail Application No. 1115 of 2018 (State v. Ikram), arising out of Case Crime No. 154 of 2018, under Section 376, 307, 323 of I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station - Firozabad South, District - Firozabad, whereby the bail application of the applicant-revisionist (juvenile) has been rejected.
It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the accused-revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is found to be 17 years of age on the basis of medical examination report, as is evident from the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Firozabad dated 31.03.2018, which is annexed at page no. 66 of the Paper Book. In the said order, the accused was found to be capable of understanding the nature of the offence he was committing and accordingly, his case was transferred to the Children's Special Court, Court No. 8, Firozabad, who has dismissed the bail application of the applicant (revisionist) erroneously, because the victim has not got herself medically examined. In the Social Investigation Report, there is no such evidence gathered on behalf of the prosecution/District Probation Officer that in case the victim is released on bail, he would come in association with any hardened criminal or would be exposed him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that the ends of justice would be defeated, which are the three necessary considerations which are taken into account while considering bail of the juvenile. Looking to the fact that there is no injury report nor any injury has been caused to the victim, the accused deserves to be granted bail by this Court. The accused-revisionist is lying in prison since 22.02.2018.
Learned A.G.A. has been granted opportunity several times to file counter affidavit, but the same has not been filed, nor any evidence could be presented from his side to show that the accused bears criminal antecedent.
I have gone through the impugned order as well as the first information report. The F.I.R. was lodged against the accused-revisionist by the mother of the victim, stating that her son had gone out of the house and when he did not return for long, her daughter/victim aged about eight years, along with her cousin Alka, had gone out in search of her brother and in the process, she reached G.R. Plaza, where a marriage ceremony was going on. On 21.02.2018 at 10.00 P.M., the accused-revisionist had enticed away the victim and took her behind curtain and committed rape upon her. Learned A.G.A. has simply drawn attention to the statement of the independent witness Virendra Singh, which is annexed at Page No. 60 of the paper book, who had seen the occurrence.
The impugned order shows that the trial court has not taken into consideration the necessary ingredients which are supposed to be taken into consideration while granting bail to the juvenile and I find that the trial court has rejected the bail application of the accused-revisionist (juvenile) on the ground of seriousness of the offence. In the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the victim has mentioned that her parents had refused to get her medically examined. Hence, in view of the fact that the victim has not been medically examined, I deem it proper to grant bail to the revisionist.
In view of above, this Court is of the view that this revision deserves to be allowed.
Ordered accordingly.
The order of the Special Judge (Juvenile Court)/(Court No. 8), Firozabad hereby stands quashed.
Let the revisionist - Ikram (Juvenile) be released on bail during trial in Case Crime No. 154 of 2018, under Section 376, 307, 323 of I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station - Firozabad South, District - Firozabad on his mother Smt. Gulsan Begam furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board concerned with the condition that that she shall not allow the revisionist to come in association with any hardened criminal and that on each and every date of trial, she shall also appear before the court concerned. In case she makes any default, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 17.10.2019 / I. Batabyal