Allahabad High Court
Mukesh Thru. His Father Gokul vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 28 May, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:32212
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1127 of 2022
Revisionist :- Mukesh Thru. His Father Gokul
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vijay Shankar Trivedi,Anil Rawat,Archana Rawat,Arjun Kumar Kaushal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Mishra
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 16.10.2021, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Lucknow passed in Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 2021 - Mukesh Vs. State of U.P. and Others thereby rejecting the criminal appeal preferred by the revisionist against order dated 17.09.2021, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in Case Crime No. 0316 of 2021, under Sections 377 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - P.G.I., 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. 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 revisionist is accused inCase Crime No. 0316 of 2021, under Sections 377 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - P.G.I., District - Lucknow.
5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the allegations levelled against the revisionist are false and that there is no eye witness of the incident. It is further submitted that the medical report does not corroborate with the statement of the prosecutrix. It is also urged that the revisionist is in custody since 22.06.2021 and hence has spent three years, eleven months in custody and does not have any criminal history. It is also submitted that at the time of occurrence of the said incident, the revisionist was juvenile and also that there is no adverse material in the report of District Probation Officer against the conduct of the revisionist while he is in custody.
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.
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 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.
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 16.10.2021 and 17.09.2021 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 Mukesh (Minor) "Juvenile" involved inCase Crime No. 0316 of 2021, under Sections 377 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - P.G.I., District - Lucknow, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his "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 :- 28.5.2025
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
