Allahabad High Court
X Juvenile vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 21 May, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85341
Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1285 of 2025
Revisionist :- X Juvenile
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shweta Nishad
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 22.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 1, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 190 of 2024 ('X' Juvenile through its guardian / Father Rampravesh Vishwakarma vs. State of U.P.) and against order dated 06.12.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur arising out of Case Crime No. 166 of 2024, under Sections 70(2), 351(3) B.N.S., Sections 5G/6 POCSO Act and Section 67 I.T. Act, Police Station Belghat, District Gorakhpur 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, an F.I.R. was lodged on 24.07.2024 by the maternal grand-father of the victim against five accused persons namely Aslam, Mantu, Shivam, Indrajeet and revisionist making allegation inter-alia that they all have committed rape upon the victim and also made her obscene video.
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 20.07.2024 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 24.10.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur treating the age of revisionist as 14 years 08 months and 03 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.4, the averment in this regard has been made in para no. 7 of the affidavit. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 07.08.2024.
6-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that though the victim in her statement under Section 183 BNSS has made allegation of rape against accused namely Aslam and Mantu and also made allegation against Shivam, Indrajeet and the revisionist that they were involved in the incident but when her statement, before the trial court, was recorded as PW-2 on 16.01.2025, she has made allegation of rape against co-accused Aslam and Mantu only. She has also stated that her video was made by Mantu while Aslam was committing rape on her. So far as other co-accused persons namely Shivam, Indrajeet and present revisionist are concerned, she has clearly stated that they were not involved in the incident. It is also pointed out that co-accused Indrajeet, Shivam and Mantu have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 13.02.2025, 20.02.2025 and 16.04.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 40909 of 2024, 35779 of 2024 and 9966 of 2025 respectively, therefore, the revisionist is also entitled to be released on bail.
7-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.
8-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.
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 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 07.08.2024 against the maximum sentence of three years in case of conviction.
10-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.
11-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.
12-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 22.01.2025 and 06.12.2024 are hereby set aside.
13-Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed.
14-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. Sangita 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;
(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
Order Date :- 21.5.2025/Saurabh
