Allahabad High Court

X Juvenile vs State Of U.P. Through Its Home Secretary ... on 21 May, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85755
 
Court No. - 78
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1267 of 2025
 

 
Revisionist :- X Juvenile
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Its Home Secretary Government Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd. Shahanshah Khan
 
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 10.02.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge / Special Judge, POCSO, Court No. 2, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2025 (X(Juvenile) vs. State of U.P. and Another) and against order dated 03.01.2025 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarnagar in Bail Application No. 2/12A of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 465 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 64 B.N.S. and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar 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 and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the record.

4-As per the prosecution case, the complainant who is father of the victim got a first information report lodged on 01.10.2024 for the offence under Section 137(2) BNS, 2023 against Sahil and revisionist making allegation inter-alia that they have enticed away his daughter.

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 01.10.2024 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 13.12.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 15 years 09 months and 29 days on the date of alleged incident. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 06.10.2024.

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 the victim, in her statement under Section 160 BNSS has stated inter-alia that she was having love affair with Sahil for the last 6-7 months' and when her parents came to know about their relation, then she decided to ran away from her house with Sahil. She has also disclosed that she started living with Sahil as husband and wife and physical relation was also made between them. So far as the revisionist is concerned, revisionist is nephew of Sahil, therefore, he has been implicated in this case. The victim, in her statement under Section 183 BNSS, has also stated that after having breakup with Sahil, she stayed with the revisionist and physical relation was also made between them. Much emphasis has been given by contending that the victim refused for her internal medical examination and there are major contradictions in her statement recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS, therefore, the revisionist is entitled to be released on bail. 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, it is true that a juvenile offender is not entitled as of right to be enlarged on bail, irrespective of any other fact or circumstance, 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 circumstance. 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 since 06.10.2024 against the maximum sentence of three years in case of conviction.

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.

10-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 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.

11-Considering the above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are erroneous and cannot be sustained. The aforesaid impugned orders dated 10.02.2025 and 03.01.2025 are hereby set aside.

12-Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed.

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