Allahabad High Court

Juvenile X vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 May, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74982
 
Court No. - 78
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 11 of 2025
 

 
Revisionist :- Juvenile X
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Avantika Nigam,Prathamesh Upadhyay
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raja Ram Kushwaha
 

 
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 21.11.2024 passed by learned Juvenile Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2024 and against order dated 18.10.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Hamirpur in Bail Application No. 30 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 140 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 115(2) and 74 B.N.S., Police Station Jalalpur, District Hamirpur whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer of bail of accused-revisionist.

2-Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P.

3-Mr. Raja Ram Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 is not present, however, this Court vide its order dated 17.04.2025 has observed that the instant matter shall not be adjourned on the next date of listing on account of non-appearance of counsel for the opposite party no. 2, hence, this Court proceeds to hear this matter on its merit.

4-As per the prosecution case, on the information given by the revisionist, father of the deceased has lodged an F.I.R. on 04.08.2024 for the offence under Sections 103(1) and 115(2) of B.N.S. against two unknown persons alleging inter-alia that on 04.08.2024 at about 11:00 am, his daughter had gone to graze the goats where two unknown persons came on a motorcycle and started assaulting his daughter. On making an objection, she was murdered and her dead body was thrown in the agricultural field of Dev Singh.

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 04.08.2024 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 10.09.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 15 years 02 months and 29 days on the date of alleged incident. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 13.08.2024.

6-As to the offence alleged, it is submitted that the revisionist has falsely been implicated in the case with an ulterior motive. The F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons and there is no eye witness of the incident. During investigation, the revisionist has been made accused on the statement of Devrath (brother of the deceased), who raised suspicion against the revisionist. It is also submitted that except the evidence of last seen, there is no direct corroborative material regarding the involvement of the revisionist in the present case. 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 13.08.2024 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 21.11.2024 and 18.10.2024 are hereby set aside.

12-Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed.

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