Allahabad High Court

Juvenile X vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 27 May, 2025

Author: Alok Mathur

Bench: Alok Mathur





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:31839
 
Court No. - 12
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 604 of 2025
 

 
Revisionist :- Juvenile X
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Arun Singh Somvanshi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Arun Singh Somvanshi, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State while Sri Abhishek Singh, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No.2. The vakalatnama filed by him and the supplementary affidavit filed by revisionist counsel are taken on record.

2. Present criminal revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.04.2025, passed by Special Judge, Children Court, Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2025 under Section 101 thereby rejecting the appeal preferred by the revisionist against order dated 28.2.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri in Case Crime No.24 of 2024, under Sections - 363, 366, 376 (3) IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act and 3(2) V of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Police Station - Singahi, District - Lucknow 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. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that according to the first information report lodged by mother of the prosecutrix it was stated that on 24.1.2024 the revisionist has enticed away his minor daughter aged about 16 years on false promise to get married and despite trying to trace her daughter she could not be found and accordingly first information report was lodged. After the prosecutrix was recovered her statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated she is studying with the revisionist in the same class and knows him for last 2 years, loved each other and since his parents were not agreeable for their marriage because of the revisionist being of another caste, on the date of the incident i.e. on 24.1.2024 she had voluntarily gone with him. From the aforesaid statement it is clear that the revisionist and the prosecutrix were in relationship with each other and they had even physical relations.

4. Accordingly considering the statement of the prosecutrix it is clear that it is not a case of forceful sexual assault and the consent of the prosecutrix is writ large as per her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Apart from the above, we find that the revisionist has been in jail since 25.1.2024 and has spent nearly one and half years in jail. We have also perused the report of the Probationary Officer and do not find any such material so as to enable us to decline the bail of the revisionist. 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.

5. 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.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. 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.

8. This Court has also gone through the report of Juvenile Justice Board, who have returned adverse report against the revisionist for releasing him on bail. It is submitted that the said report is contested by learned counsel for the revisionist by submitting that it is devoid of any judicial sanctity and hence cannot be relied upon.

9. 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.

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 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.

11. 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 24.04.2025 and 28.2.2024 are hereby set aside. The revisionist has made out a case for his release on bail.

12. Accordingly, present criminal revision is allowed.

13. Let the revisionist "Juvenile X" involved in Case Crime No.24 of 2024, under Sections - 363, 366, 376 (3) IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act and 3(2) V of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Police Station - Singahi, District - Lucknow, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his "father Y", 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.