Allahabad High Court
Juvenile X Thru. His Brother On Case ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 22 May, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30653
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 384 of 2025
Revisionist :- Juvenile X Thru. His Brother On Case Crime No. 269/2024
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sukh Deo Singh,Paritosh Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite parties.
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 10.03.2025, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 12/Special Judge (POCSO Act, Sultanpur passed in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2025, thereby rejecting the criminal appeal preferred by the revisionist against order dated 10.01.2025 and 24.01.2025, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur in Case Crime No. 269 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) of BNSS, Police Station - Baldirai, District - Sultanpur 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. Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders has submitted that allegations against the revisionist are false and misconceived and he has been falsely implicated and wrongly convicted in the present case.
4. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that according to the first information report the incident occurred on 09.10.2024, at about 4.30AM when the deceased was going to ease himself, the revisionist alongwith other co-accused persons fired upon him by country made pistol and the victim died on the spot. It is alleged that there is long standing enmity between the parties with regard to land dispute and election rivalry, and in a case the deceased was witness, hence, on account of which the deceased has been murdered by the accused persons.
5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that revisionist is not named in the first information report and his name came to light for the first time in the statement of co-accused Aniket Tiwari. It is stated that even according to the statement role of revisionist is only with regard hatching conspiracy in the said case. It is also urged that the revisionist is in custody since 24.10.2024 and does not have any previous criminal history.
6. 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 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, 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. It is further submitted that co-accused of the case namely Shubham Yadav and Aniket Tiwari have been already enlarged on bail by this Court by means of order dated 14.05.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3784 of 2025, hence the revisionist may also be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
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 the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
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 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.
10. This Court has also gone through the report of District Probationary Officer, where nothing adverse has been reported against the revisionist.
11. 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.
12. 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 party/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.
13. 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 10.03.2025, 10.01.2025 and 24.01.2025 are hereby set aside. The revisionist has made out a case for his release on bail.
14. Accordingly, present criminal revision is allowed.
15. Let the revisionist "Juvenile X" involved inCase Crime No. 269 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) of BNSS, Police Station - Baldirai, District - Sultanpur, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his "Brother/Father", 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.
Order Date :- 22.5.2025
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
