Allahabad High Court
Juvenile X Thru. His Mother Y vs State Of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home ... on 15 May, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28746
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 368 of 2024
Revisionist :- Juvenile X Thru. His Mother Y
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vijay Kumar,Atul Kumar,Harish Chandra,Prashant Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Harish Chandra, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Ms. Shruti Verma holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra on behalf of respondent No.2.
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 10.11.2023, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli in case No.118 of 2023 and the order dated 21.2.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act (Exclusive) First, Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2023 arising out of case crime No.229 of 2023 under Sections 364A, 302, 201 IPC, police station Lalganj, District Raebareli thereby bail application of the revisionist has been rejected. In the present criminal revision both the orders have been assailed, and prayer for releasing the revisionist on bail has been made.
3. It has been submitted that the revisionist is juvenile who is an accused in case crime No.229/2023 under Sections- 364 A, 302, 201 IPC. The allegations against the revisionist are serious in as much as he along with his father and one another person is alleged to have strangulated another minor and his role in the entire incident has been stated by one Hari Om Pandey, who is an eyewitness to the said incident.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the case of the revisionist deserves to be considered as juvenile under the provisions of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act. He submits that the revisionist has spent two years in jail and accordingly there is nothing adverse in the report submitted by the Probationary Officer and, therefore, the bail should be granted.
5. The bail has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents stating that considering the gravity of the offence and the role of the revisionist does not entitle the revisionists to be released on bail.
6. Considering the fact that as per the order of the Juvenile Justice Board the revisionist has been declared to be a child in conflict with law. We have also perused the report of the District Probationary Officer and do not find any adverse material which may persuade us to conclude that he may be associated with known criminals or may indulge in similar acts subsequent to his release.
7. Attention of this Court has also been drawn towards the judgment and order of the Supreme Court in the case of Juvenile in conflict with law Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, passed on 14.8.2024 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9566 of 2024. The relevant portion of this judgment reads asunder:-
"6. From the phraseology used in sub-section 1 of Section 12, a juvenile in conflict with law has to be necessarily released on bail with or without surety or placed under supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person unless proviso is applicable.
7. We have perused all the orders passed earlier by the JJ Board, Special Court and High Court and specially the order dated 11th December, 2023 passed by the JJ Board. There is no finding recorded that the proviso to sub-Section 1 of Section 12 is applicable to the facts of the case. Without recording the said finding, bail could not have been denied to juvenile in conflict with law.
8. Our attention is invited to Psychological Assessment Report of the Juvenile. The report records that the juvenile does not belong to high risk category and against the column ?worry list of child? it is mentioned that there was ?no worry?. The report is signed by a qualified Clinical Psychologist.
9. Though none of the courts at no stage have recorded a finding that in the facts of the case, the proviso to sub- Section 1 of Section 12 was applicable, the juvenile in conflict with law has been denied bail for last one year.
10. Hence, the impugned orders are set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed."
8. 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 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 as the instant revision has been filed by the mother who has taken upon herself to look after the juvenile in case he is released on bail, 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.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents have 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.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. 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.
12. This Court has also gone through the report of Juvenile Justice Board, who have returned nothing adverse against the revisionist for releasing him on bail. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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 10.11.2023 and 21.2.2024 are hereby set aside. The revisionist has made out a case for his release on bail. Accordingly, present criminal revision is allowed.
15. Let the revisionist Juvenile 'X' involved in case crime No.229 of 2023 under Sections 364A, 302, 201 IPC, police station Lalganj, District Raebareli, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his "Mother", 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.
(iv) The revisionist or his family members shall not attempt to make any contact with the prosecutrix or her family members.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 15.5.2025/RKM.
