Juvenile X Thru. His Father Y vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6403 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Juvenile X Thru. His Father Y vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 24 March, 2025

Author: Alok Mathur

Bench: Alok Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16958
 
Court No. - 12
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1362 of 2024
 

 
Revisionist :- Juvenile X Thru. His Father Y
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Harish Chandra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jay Kumar Soni
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Harish Chandra, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite parties.

2. Present criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.10.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Juvenile Justice Court/Special Judge (POCSO Act, Lucknow passed in Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 2024 - Himanshu Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Others thereby rejecting the criminal appeal preferred by the revisionist against order dated 26.07.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in Case Crime No. 81 of 2024, under Sections 363, 376DA, 307, 34 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - B.B.D., District - Lucknow thereby bail application of the revisionist has been rejected. In the present criminal appeal both the orders have been assailed, and prayer for releasing the revisionist on bail has been made.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders has submitted that allegations against the revisionist are false and misconceived inasmuch as, the revisionist and prosecutrix were in a relationship and prosecutrix used to come to the house of relative of revisionist and they were very well known to each other.

4. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that according to the first information report the incident occurred on 31.05.2024, at about 1.50AM when the revisionist accompanied by another person has brought the prosecutrix to an empty plot and sexually assaulted her and threatened her not to disclose about the said incident to anyone.

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that various social media app messages were exchanged between the revisionist and prosecutrix, demonstrating the said relationship. It is further submitted that the statements of prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. have been recorded at the behest of parents of prosecutrix. It is also urged that the revisionist is in custody since last ten months and does not have any criminal history.

6. As to the offence alleged, it is submitted that the revisionist has been falsely 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 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, the 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 Children) Act, 2015.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the present revision. 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 the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is true that a juvenile offender is not entitled as of right to be enlarged on bail, irrespective of any other fact or circumstances, 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 circumstances. 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 for last ten months.

10. This Court has also gone through the report of Juvenile Justice Board, who have returned adverse report against the revisionist for releasing him on bail. It is submitted that the said report is contested by learned counsel for the revisionist by submitting that it is devoid of any judicial sanctity and hence cannot be relied upon.

11. The Court has to see whether the opinion of the appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and orders are in consonance with the provisions 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.

12. 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 party/State, 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.

13. Considering the above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board are erroneous and cannot be sustained. The impugned orders dated 29.10.2024 and 26.07.2024 are hereby set aside. The revisionist has made out a case for his release on bail.

14. Accordingly, present criminal revision is allowed.

15. Let the revisionist "Juvenile X" involved in Case Crime No. 81 of 2024, under Sections 363, 376DA, 307, 34 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - B.B.D., District - Lucknow, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his "father Y", 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, threaten the witnesses or in any manner contact the prosecutrix during course of trial;

(ii) The revisionist though 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. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the IPC.

Order Date :- 24.3.2025

A. Verma

(Alok Mathur, J.)