Allahabad High Court

X Juvenile 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:69192
 
Court No. - 78
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1095 of 2025
 
Revisionist :- X Juvenile
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Noor Muhammad,Yogesh Kumar Srivastava
 
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 04.01.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) / Additional District and Sessions Judge, Firozabad in Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 2024 (Prashant Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another) and against order dated 16.11.2024 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Firozabad in Case Crime No. 167 of 2024, under Sections 103(1) BNS, Police Station Matsena, District Firozabad 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 his 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-Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 05.08.2024 and he has been declared juvenile vide order of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 16 years 03 months and 16 days on the date of alleged incident. It is next 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. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 04.09.2024. Co-accused Sandeep, under similar accusation, has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.11.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43353 of 2024, hence, the bail application of the revisionist is also liable to be allowed on the ground of parity.

5-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, 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.

6-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.

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

8-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.

9-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 04.01.2025 and 16.11.2024 are hereby set aside.

10-Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed.

11-Let the revisionist X Juvenile, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his natural guardian / mother, namely, Smt. Marg Shree 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;