Allahabad High Court
Juvenile X vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 23 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61132
Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1680 of 2025
Revisionist :- Juvenile X
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Krishna Kumar Patel,Pavan Kishore
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1-The present criminal revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.03.2025 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Juvenile Court, Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2025 ('X' vs. State of U.P.) and against order dated 29.11.2024 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hamirpur in Case Crime No. 255 of 2024, under Sections 376, 323 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Rath, District Hamirpur, whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer for bail of accused-revisionist.
2-Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P.
3-As per the prosecution case in brief, informant-Dileep Kumar, who is father of the victim got a first information report lodged on 10.06.2024 with regard to an incident dated 07.06.2024 against the revisionist and one Deeksha for the offence under Sections 376, 308, 323, 120-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act alleging inter-alia that his daughter, aged about 17 years and 06 months, went to her maternal uncle's house to attend a marriage ceremony. On the day of incident, co-accused Deeksha took her for defecation where the revisionist was already present. The revisionist held the hand of the victim, dragged her and when she started shouting, revisionist started assaulting her and also committed rape on her by putting a cloth in her mouth. F.I.R. also alleges that when the victim tried to run away, the revisionist, with a heavy object, assaulted on her head, whereby, she became unconscious and when she gained consciousness, she returned to her maternal uncle's house.
4-Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 07.06.2024 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 17.09.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 17 years and 08 days on the date of alleged incident. It is next argued that during the course of trial, victim has not supported the prosecution case, therefore, the revisionist may be enlarged on bail.
5-Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State vehemently opposed the present revision by contending that merely because the revisionist is a juvenile, it would not entitle him to bail without going into the gravity of the offence and the nature of the crime. Much emphasis has been given by contending that the revisionist is a person of hardened criminal mind and is also an imminent danger to the public at large. It is also contended that the bail sought for has been rightly refused in view of Section 12(1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015.
6-Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that a juvenile offender who is above 16 years of age and below 18 years of age is not entitled as of right to be enlarged on bail. The Court has to see whether the opinion of the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and orders are in consonance with the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Section 12 of the aforesaid Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile. They are:-
(i) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or
(ii) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or
(iii) that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
7-Having gone through the record, this Court finds that the victim, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has supported the version of F.I.R. wherein charge of committing rape upon her has been levelled against the revisionist. The father of victim, who has been examined as PW-1 before the trial Court in his examination-in-chief has supported the prosecution case but in cross-examination, he has given otherwise statement. Thereafter victim in her statement as PW-2 did not support the prosecution case. This Court is of the view that conclusion from the statement of any witness shall be drawn by the trial Court considering his/her statement in toto not in isolation. It is well settled that a man may tell lie but record and circumstances do not.
8-Since the allegation of the prosecution and the defence of the accused are still open to be urged before the trial court, therefore, this Court at this stage is not examining the statement of prosecution witnesses meticulously, so that it may not effect the merits of the trial.
9-Since the age of revisionist is above 16 years and below 18 years and the offence of rape is heinous in nature, his trial is going on as an adult, therefore, in view of the legal position applicable to the present case, in case of conviction of the revisionist, he can be sentenced for more than three years except life or death. In case, the revisionist is released on bail, there is a strong possibility of his being in danger morally, physically or psychologically and he may again get involved in criminal activities. In the matter of bail of juvenile, the Court has to see literally through a prism having three angles, i.e. firstly, the angle of welfare and betterment of the child itself, secondly, the demands of justice to the victim and her family and thirdly, the concerns of society at large. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, in case revisionist is released on bail, then his release would defeat the ends of justice.
10-In view of the above, the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are not erroneous and cannot be said to be unsustainable. The aforesaid impugned orders are not liable to be interfered with, which are wholly impeccable.
11-As a fall out and consequence of the above, the present criminal revision lacks merit and is accordingly rejected.
12-However the trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial of the revisionist, expeditiously, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
Order Date :- 23.4.2025
Saurabh
