Allahabad High Court
Juvenile X , Thru. His Father vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 18 August, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48225
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1325 of 2024
Revisionist :- Juvenile X , Thru. His Father
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajeet Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2/complainant despite service of notice, as appears from the letter of C.J.M., Hardoi dated 02.12.2024. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In these circumstances, the Court proceeded to hear the instant bail revision on merits.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short "Act of 2015") has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.09.2024, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge,Court No. 15, Hardoi in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2024, which was preferred against the order dated 13.09.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hardoi in Bail Application No. 52 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.238/2024, under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506, 109, 120-B, 34 IPC, Police Station- Pali, District- Hardoi.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the case, inasmuch as, the revisionist has not committed any offence as alleged and the prosecution story is false, concocted and misconceived.
5. It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, is languishing in jail since 01.06.2024 and he is having no criminal history, which has not been opposed by the learned AGA, and as per Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015, the maximum punishment which could be awarded to a juvenile is three years and as such, taking note of the period of incarceration, the juvenile is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. It is further stated that the revisionist of Criminal Revision No. 1319 of 2024 is not named in the FIR and the present revisionist is named in the FIR. Only this much is the difference between them.
7. It is further stated that specific role of causing firearm injury to the deceased has been assignedto co-accused/Jubairin the FIR and also by the witnesses present at the situs of crime namely Omveer Singh and Pranjal @ Sidharth Dixit.
8. It is further stated thatrevisionist of Criminal Revision No. 1319 of 2024 has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 07.03.2025. The copy of order dated 07.03.2025 placed before this Court is taken on record. The order dated 07.03.2025 is extracted hereunder:-
"1.The revision petition has been filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to set aside order dated 20.9.2024, passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act/Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.15, Hardoi in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2024 and order dated 13.9.2024, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Hardoi in bail application No. 53/2024 arising out of case crime No.238 of 2024 under sections 302, 323, 504, 506, 109, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Pali, district Hardoi, with a further prayer to release the revisionist on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. None appears for respondent No.2 although notice has been served.
3. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that that on 4-5 days ago, the nephew of the informant had a altercation with the accused, who are named in the FIR and on account of the said altercation, on 30.05.2024 at about 6:00 PM, the nephew of the informant going along with his friends Omveer Singh and Pranjale Dixit, the accused named in the FIR abused them and one of the co-accused Jubair filed with a country made weapon, as a result whereof, the nephew of the informant suffered severe injuries and thereafter died.
4.Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is not named in the first information report. In the first information report, Adnan son of Ikram was named. The revisionist is Adnan son of Sabban Fauji. The complainant while giving statement has taken the name of the revisionist also by levelling general allegation. The eye-witness Omveer Singh has assigned general role of exhortion to the revisionist and the other co-accused persons. Role of firing according to the statement of eye-witness is on Zuber. The revisionist was 16 years 10 months and 10 days old on the date of occurrence. The D.P.R.O. has given no adverse report against the revisionist.
The co-accused persons Kamran, Ikram Khan and Faiz Khan who were also assigned general role have been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders placed on record (page 93 to 95 of paper book).
It is further submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board and also the appellate court while rejecting the bail application(s) overlooked the opinion of the district Probation Officer as also the true spirit and intent of the Legislature as provided under Section 12 of the Act.
It is submitted that in the present case, no such contingency as provided in Section 12 of the Act is present and the release of the juvenile may not attract parameters as provided under the proviso to section 12(1) of Juvenile Justice Act.
It is next submitted on behalf of the revisionist that bail to a child in reference to Section 12 of the Act in conflict with law is a rule and denial is an exception.
In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on a judgment and order dated 11.1.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No.332 of 2019 Kuldeep Vishwakarma (Minor) through his father Swami Nath versus State of U.P. and another.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate does not dispute the legal proposition and submits that the court may pass appropriate order in the best interest of the child.
5. There is no material on record to indicate that in case the revisionist is released, it would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
6. In view of what has been stated hereinabove as also the fact that the co-accused persons named above have been released on bail, the criminal revision is liable to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 20.9.2024 (supra) and order dated 13.9.2024 (supra) are set aside.
The revisionist is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of concerned Juvenile Justice Board subject to the condition that parent/guardian of the revisionist will take care of his education and betterment and will not allow to indulge him in any criminal activity and will keep constant check on his activities. Both the sureties are directed to be close relatives of the revisionist juvenile."
9. It is further stated that in these circumstances, the revisionist is entitled to be enlarged on bail and in case he is enlarged on bail, there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may come with the contact of the known and unknown bet criminals or may be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger.
10. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submitted that no illegality has been committed by both the courts below as there was ample evidence against the revisionist, but he has not disputed the above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist.
11. Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.
12. The impugned judgment and order dated20.09.2024, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge,Court No. 15, Hardoi in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2024 and the order dated 13.09.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hardoi in Bail Application No. 52 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.238/2024, under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506, 109, 120-B, 34 IPC, Police Station- Pali, District- Hardoi, are hereby set aside.
13. LetJuvenile 'X', of aforesaid Case Crime Numberbe enlarged on bail, in the above mentioned case on executing a personal bond by his father/natural guardian with two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court/Board concerned and on submission of undertaking on affidavit by his father that she will take due care of the juvenile, will not allow him to indulge in any unlawful or criminal activity or join the company of unlawful elements, will keep him under strict control, shall not attempt or tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses, shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence, shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed either personally or through her counsel, failing which, the order of bail granted to Juvenile may be cancelled.
14. For a period of one year from today, the Juvenile shall appear before the District Probation Officer concerned along with his natural guardian on 10th of every month.
Order Date :- 18.8.2025
Arun/-
