Allahabad High Court
Juvenile X,Thru. His Father vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 26 March, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17599
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 406 of 2024
Revisionist :- Juvenile X,Thru. His Father
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Neeraj Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhuvan Dwivedi
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Neeraj Singh, 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 08.04.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Juvenile Justice Court/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.11, Unnao passed in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2024 - Juvenile 'X' Vs. State of U.P. and Another thereby dismissing the criminal appeal preferred by the revisionist confirming the order dated 17.02.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Unnao, thereby rejecting the bail application of the revisionist, in Case Crime No. 142 of 2023, under Sections 376 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Sohramau, District - Unnao. 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 the first information report was lodged by the complainant/opposite party no. 2 against revisionist on 02.09.2023 being Case Crime No. 142 of 2023, under Section 376 IPC and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station - Sohramau, District - Unnao.
4. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that according to the first information report opposite party no. 2 who is aged about 16 years and the revisionist who is resident of same village, developed physical relationship about 8-9 months ago, on promise to marry the prosecutrix-opposite party no. 2 and on account of aforesaid relationship, the prosecutrix became pregnant and it is when the revisionist refused to marry her, the first information report in question has been lodged against the revisionist.
5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the prosecutrix herself has stated that she and revisionist were in relationship about 4-5 months and they had also developed physical relationship, due to which she became pregnant and it is only when the revisionist refused to marry her, the prosecutrix informed the said fact to her parents, pursuant to which FIR has been lodged. It is submitted that even determination of age of the revisionist is disputed and according to the revisionist his age on the date of incident, which according to the prosecutrix was 8-9 months prior, then certainly probably revisionist was much less then 16 years old and provisions of Section 15 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act would not be applicable. It is also urged that the revisionist is in custody since 02.09.2023 and has spent more than one and half years in custody.
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. This Court has also perused the report of Juvenile Justice Board, but in the same no adverse comments against the revisionist have been recorded.
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 not returned adverse report against the revisionist for releasing him on bail.
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 08.04.2024 and 17.02.2024 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 inCase Crime No. 142 of 2023, under Sections 376 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Sohramau, District - Unnao, 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 :- 26.3.2025
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
