Allahabad High Court
Xx Juvenile vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62796
Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3390 of 2024
Revisionist :- Xx Juvenile
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Kailash Nath,Shailendra Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kanhaiyalal Bind
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
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 29.06.2024 passed by the Children's Court/ Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act Exclusive, Jaunpur in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2024 (Juvenile vs. State of U.P. and another), and against order dated 01.06.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Jaunpur in Misc. Case No. 64 of 2024 (State vs. Guddu Bind) arising out of Case Crime No. 41 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., police station Kheta Sarai, district Jaunpur, whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer of bail of accused-revisionist.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P./ opposite party No. 1, learned counsel for the complainant/ opposite party No. 2 and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 12.03.2023 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 31.05.2024 of the Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 12 years, 10 months and 02 days on the date of alleged incident. It is next submitted that aforesaid order declaring the revisionist as juvenile has attained finality because the same has not been challenged by opposite party No. 2, the averment in this regard has been made in paragraph No. 6 of the supplementary affidavit dated 17.12.2024 filed in support of this criminal revision. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 15.03.2024.
As to the offence alleged, it is submitted that the revisionist has falsely been implicated in the case with ulterior motive. In this regard, it is further stated that proper investigation was not conducted by the police and thus the revisionist had wrongly been charged with the offence. It is next submitted that there is no eye-witness of the incident. The F.I.R. has been lodged against Arjun Bind, Amarjeet Bind and the present revisionist on the basis of suspicion because on 12.03.2024, deceased had gone along with the revisionist as well as other accused persons in the marriage of Kuldeep Bind. It is further submitted that co-accused X Minor has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2024 in Criminal Revision No. 3817 of 2024.
It is further being emphasized that the revisionist does not have any criminal antecedent to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no material on record for believing that the release of revisionist is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, psychological danger, therefore, aforesaid impugned orders are not sustainable and liable to be set aside and revisionist is entitled to be released on bail in view of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015.
Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 vehemently opposed the present revision by contending that dead body of the deceased was recovered at the pointing out of the accused persons. It has thus been submitted, merely because the revisionist is a juvenile it would not entitle him to bail without going into the gravity of the offence, the nature of the crime. 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.
Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is no direct evidence against the revisionist. It is true that a juvenile offender is not entitled as of right to be enlarged on bail, irrespective of any other fact or circumstance, however, it also cannot be denied that in view of specific and special legislative intent and intervention, refusal of bail in the case of a juvenile may be made only for specific reasons and circumstance. Otherwise, a general legislative presumption does appear to exist under the scheme of the Act that the welfare of alleged juvenile offender would be better served without he being confined for long duration. Here, the revisionist has remained in juvenile home since 15.03.2024 against the maximum sentence of three years in case of conviction.
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:-
(1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or
(2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or
(3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail in Section 12 of the aforesaid Act. Though the prayer for bail of the revisionist has been opposed by learned counsel for the opposite parties, but could not demonstrate from the record that there existed any of the grounds on which bail application of a juvenile could be rejected keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Considering the above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are erroneous and cannot be sustained. The aforesaid impugned judgment and orders dated 29.06.2024 and 01.06.2024 are hereby set aside.
Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed.
Let the revisionist-XX Juvenile, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his father, namely, Darshan Lal Bind, who is his natural guardian with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(ii) The revisionist through guardian shall 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;
(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
Order Date :- 24.4.2025
Kashifa
