Allahabad High Court

X Juvenile Minor 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:75036
 
Court No. - 78
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5009 of 2024
 

 
Revisionist :- X Juvenile Minor
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Surendra Mohan Mishra,Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dewendra Singh,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 03.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 1, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 2024, and against order dated 30.07.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur in Case Crime No. 212 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C., police station Campiorganj, district Gorakhpur, 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, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P., learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

3. As per the prosecution case, in brief, complainant lodged a first information report on 03.05.2024 for the alleged offence under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C. against Gunjan, Kaushalya and others with the allegations inter alia they called his father at their house and killed him by deception.

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 01.05.2024 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 16.07.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 15 years and 10 month on the date of alleged incident. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 07.05.2024.

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 the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. Co-accused Gunjan Nishad and Smt. Kaushalya have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders 31.07.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 23266 of 2024 and 23267 of 2024 respectively. Case of present revisionist stands on better footing to that of co-accused Gunjan Nishad and Smt. Kaushalya.

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 representing the State 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, 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 07.05.2024 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 parties, 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 03.09.2024 and 30.07.2024 are hereby set aside.

12. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed.

13. Let the revisionist X Juvenile (Minor), involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his mother, namely, Smt. Reeta Devi 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;