In the instant case, the revisionist challenged the order passed by the Hon’ble Judge (POCSO Act) where his bail application was dismissed.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court granted bail to the revisionist as the testimony of the prosecutrix was found to be unreliable.
FIR lodged by the father of the prosecutrix
An FIR was lodged by the second respondent saying that his daughter was taken away by blandishment by the revisionist.
As per the statement, the age of the prosecutrix is said to be 13 years.
The revisionist was arrested, and his age was ascertained to be around 17 years.
A bail application was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board which was rejected.
An appeal was filed before the Hon’ble Judge( POCSO Act) which was dismissed as well.
Aggrieved, a revision petition was filed.
Counsel for the revisionist states that the prosecutrix was major and not minor
Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the prosecutrix was major and went with the revisionist of her own will.
When her father lodged a complaint, she returned along with the revisionist.
It was alleged that the prosecutrix implicated the revisionist because of her father.
The Counsel argues that the revisionist should be released on bail because he doesn’t fall in the disentitling categories
mentioned in Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Justice will be defeated if the revisionist is released on bail.
Counsel for the respondents argued that the instant case is of rape involving a minor, aged between 15-16 years and
if the revisionist is released on bail, then it would lead to ends of justice being defeated.
Allahabad HC Grants Bail to Juvenile
Hon’ble Court observed that even though the age of the prosecutrix is mentioned as 15 years while the medical examination states that her age is around 16.
While considering the usual variation of two years, it can be said that the prosecutrix age is 18 years, and therefore she was major.
Further the statement that was given to the lady constable by the prosecutrix, the Court noted that she went with the revisionist on her own accord and also stated that she wasn’t ravished.
However, when her statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPc, she stated that the revisionist raped her.
The Court held that the revisionist should be released on bail as the testimony of the prosecutrix was not reliable.
Title: Khushabuddin Ali vs the State of U.P. and Another
Case No. CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 4921 of 2019
Date Of Order: 05.10.2020
Coram: Hon’ble Justice J. J Munir
Counsel for Revisionist:- Atul Nayak, Rajesh Kumar Mall, Ravi Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party:- G.A.