Allahabad High Court

X Minor vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 May, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69295
 
Court No. - 78
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6026 of 2024
 

 
Revisionist :- X Minor
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Amit Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

1-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 16.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (Juvenile Court), Court No. 1, Additional Sessions Judge, Mau in Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2024 and against order dated 26.09.2024 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mau in Bail Application No. 389 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 377 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 238 of B.N.S., Police Station Ghosi, District Mau, whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer of bail of accused-revisionist.

2-Despite service of notice upon the complainant/informant, no one has put in appearance on her behalf, hence, this Court proceeds to hear this matter on merit.

3-Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the record.

4-As per the prosecution case in brief, complainant Priyanka Yadav got a first information report lodged on 25.08.2024 for the offence under Sections 103(1), 3(5) and 238 of B.N.S. against Sriram Yadav, Harishchandra Yadav, Abhiram Yadav and the present revisionist. In the F.I.R., the allegation of committing the murder of the complainant's son has been levelled against all the accused persons.

5-Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 24.08.2024 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 10.09.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 16 years 01 month and 07 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 the opposite party No.2, the averment in this regard has been made in para no. XI of the affidavit. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 01.09.2024.

6-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 other co-accused persons namely Sriram Yadav, Abhiram Yadav and Harishchandra Yadav have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 12.12.2024 and 16.01.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42204 of 2024 and 38448 of 2024 respectively, hence, the bail application of the revisionist is also liable to be allowed on the ground of parity. 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.

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 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015.

8-Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I find that co-accused persons, under similar accusation, have been granted bail as noted above.

9-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:-

(i) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or

(ii) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or

(iii) that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

Considering the facts of the case as noted above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are erroneous and cannot be sustained. The aforesaid impugned orders dated 16.10.2024 and 26.09.2024 are hereby set aside.

10-Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed.

11-Let the revisionist X Minor, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his mother namely Smt. Gyanmati 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;