X- Minor vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 7139 ALL

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 7139 ALL
Judgement Date : 22 May, 2025

Allahabad High Court

X- Minor vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 May, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86996
 
Court No. - 78
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2443 of 2024
 

 
Revisionist :- X- Minor
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mujiburrahman,Surendra Mohan Mishra,Surya Prakash Dubey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rahul Kumar
 

 
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 10.04.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Siddharth Nagar in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2024 ('X' Vs. State of U.P.), and against order dated 13.02.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Siddharth Nagar in Case Crime No. 113 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 323 I.P.C., police station Mohana, district Siddharth Nagar, whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer of bail of the accused-revisionist.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P./opposite party No. 1, learned counsel for the complainant / opposite party No. 2 and perused the record.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant Ram Keshav got a first information report on 29.05.2023 for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 307 I.P.C. against six accused persons, namely, Sanjay, Rajkumar, Sandeep, Kishun, Babita and the present revisionist with the allegations inter alia that on 28.05.2023 regarding a fight among the children, the accused persons beaten up the family members of informant. Written information about the said incident was also given by the informant to the police. On 29.05.2023 at 6 A.M. when informant's brother was going from his one house to another, all the accused persons surrounded his brother and attacked him. On raising alarm by informant's brother, his father and uncle also came there and accused persons also assaulted them with sickle, sticks and rods. When informant and other villagers reached there, the accused persons leaving his brother, father and uncle in dying condition fled away from the spot. The informant immediately informed 112 and took the injured persons to the hospital, and they were hovering between life and death.

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 29.05.2023 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 13.02.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 16 years, 04 months and 28 days on the date of alleged incident. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 21.10.2023.

5. 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 further submitted that co-accused Ramkumar, Babita, Sandeep and Kishun, have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 11.12.2023 and 21.11.2023, in Criminal Misc. Bail application Nos. 50803 of 2023, 41649 of 2023, 47620 of 2023 and 48148 of 2023 respectively and role of present revisionist is also similar to that of aforesaid accused persons, therefore, he is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

6. 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.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant 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 there is no adverse report of District Probation Officer, Siddharth Nagar, against the revisionist.

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. 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 dated10.04.2024 and13.02.2024 are hereby set aside.

11. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed.

12. Let the revisionistX (Minor), involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his father, namely, Shiv Charan, 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;