Allahabad High Court

X Juvenile vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 October, 2025

Author: Santosh Rai

Bench: Santosh Rai





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:176565
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5462 of 2025   
 
   X Juvenile    
 
  .....Revisionist(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 3 Others    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Revisionist(s)   
 
:   
 
Girish Vishwakarma, Saroj Kumar Dubey   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 87
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

1. List has been revised. None appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. The notice has already been served against the respondents.

3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the relevant records.

4. The present criminal revision has been preferred to quash the order dated 2.9.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2025 (Bal Apchari Vs. State of U.P.) by which dismissing the criminal appeal of the revisionist and the order dated 18.8.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur rejecting the bail application of revisionist in Case Crime No. 504 of 2025 (State Vs. Shalendra Nisad) under Section 65(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of B.N.S. and 5L/6, POCSO Act, Police Station Pipraich, District Gorakhpur.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the order passed by the court below are totally illegal and the court below has failed to consider the material evidence by whom it is proved that applicant have not committed any offence. It is submitted that according to the version of first information report its appear that the victim is a consenting party and she has a consulted relation with applicant and on the statement of the same no prima-facie offence is made out against the applicant but the court below has failed to consider the material aspect and illegally rejected the bail application of applicant. It is submitted that the District Probation Officer has made a suspicious report without any material evidence that the applicant may expose in danger. More so in future it may be in association with known criminal and court below relying the report without any evidence and rejected the bail application of applicant as such committed error of law. It is further submitted that the investigation officer produced to victim/informant for recording her statement under Section 183 of B.N.S.S. before magistrate on 9.7.2025, thereafter the statement of the same was recorded in which she made different version. It is next submitted that every juvenile under Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is entitled to be released on bail except in circumstances which his/her release will bring him/her into association with any known criminal or expose him/her to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the present criminal revision. He submitted that the incident reported is true and it is wrong to say that the allegations made against the revisionist are false, and/are motivated. Also, reliance has been placed on the findings recorded in the revisionist rejection orders to submit that the instant revision may be dismissed.

7. It is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Act. Under Section 12 of the Act, the prayer for bail of a juvenile may be rejected 'if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice'.

8. 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 the Act. Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail may be refused to a juvenile offender. These 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.

Thus, gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the bail. It is not a relevant factor while considering to grant bail to the juvenile. It has been so held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB). It has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions of this court.

9. Thus, it remains largely undisputed that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of occurrence, does not appear to be prone to criminal proclivity or criminal psychology, in light of the observations of the D.P.O; does not have a criminal history; has been in confinement for an unduly long period of time, in as much as the trial has not concluded within time frame contemplated by the Act. Even otherwise, there does not appear to exist any factor or circumstance mentioned in section 12 of the Act as may disentitle the revisionist to grant of bail, at this stage. The sister of the revisionist undertakes to address the statutory concerns expressed in section 12 of the Act, as to the safety and well being of the revisionist, upon his release.

10. The juvenile X is named in the first information report and it has been stated that the juvenile was in physical relationship with the victim Y for two years on the basis of false promise of marriage. Later on, the revisionist/juvenile has denied to get marriage to the victim during the course of investigation proceeding the victim statement were recorded under Section 180 and 183 of B.N.S.S. She stated that the accused has committed physical relationship with her on the basis of false promise of marriage for last two years. The Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur has rejected the bail application of the revisionist particularly on the basis of report of District Probation Officer, Gorakhpur and nature of offence. Thereafter the revisionist filed an appeal before the appellate court against the impugned order the appellate court also rejected the appeal vide order dated 2.9.2025 on the ground that the Juvenile Justice Board, had not committed any illegality while passing the impugned order and the appellate court also taken the same view and affirmed the order of Juvenile Justice Board.

11. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides that 'when any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a abailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person. Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the persons release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.

12. Thus, from the perusal of the above provision it clearly appears that bail may be denied to a child only under the following three circumstances namely, (i) that the release on bail will bring the child under in contact with known criminals or (ii) the release will expose the child to moral physical or psychological danger; or (iii) the release will defeat the ends of justice. Bail to a child cannot be refused without due consideration of above mentioned three grounds, in catena of judgements Hon'ble Apex Court held that bail to a child in conflict with law can only be refused if anyone of the grounds mentioned in Section 12. Thus, so far as the ground of gravity of offence is concerned, it is not covered under the bail provision of the Juvenile Justice Act. If the bail application of the child was to be considered under the provision of the Cr.P.C./B.N.S.S. there would have been absolutely no necessity for the enactment of the aforesaid juvenile justice Act. Section 12 of the Act itself lays down that 'notwithstanding anything contained in Cr.P.C. or in any law for time being in force', the child in conflict with law shall be released on bail. In this case, the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court have taken view particularly on the basis of report of District Probation Officer regarding the fact that the juvenile may come into association of known criminals but it is admitted fact that the juvenile X/revisionist has no any criminal antecedent, how the District Probation Officer has drawn the inference regarding the fact that the juvenile may come into contact of known criminals is also not clear. Thus, inference of the District Probation Officer appears to be based on hypothesis.

13. Thus the term 'known criminal' used under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 must be assigned a meaning as in under custody. Ordinarily, it would include a person who habitually commits crime, or person with bad criminal antecedents or criminal history gangster hardcore criminals who repeatedly committed a particular type of crime etc as such a person may be accused to the child in conflict with law but has been involved in a crime but has not criminal history or criminal antecedent to his group cannot be termed as known criminal in Prahalad Gaur vs. State of U.P. 2009 Crl 153 All and Amit Yadav Vs. State of U.P. 2016 5 All 169 this Court has rightly observed that 'single instance' of a child delinquent joining the company of some known criminal or criminals would not be sufficient to satisfied the definition of word association used in Section 12 of the Act, if his past conduct had been of such nature which indicates his continuance association with known criminal or criminals then there would be justification for inferring that his release may bring him association with known criminals, thus, only on the basis of a 'single case' it cannot be inferred that the single act would bring with known criminals in Gopi Nath Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal 1984 SCC 228 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that 'where a juvenile delinquent is arrested, he/she has to be produced before the juvenile court as such a juvenile delinquent ordinarily has to be released on bail irrespective of the nature of offence alleged to have been committed unless it is done that there appears reasonable ground for believing is likely to bring him under the influence of any criminal or expose him into moral danger or defeat the ends of justice.

14. Section 12 of the J.J. Act makes the grant of bail to a child in conflict with law the rule, and its denial the exception. The Supreme Court has consistently reinforced this principle in its recent jurisprudence, emphasizing the Act's primary objections of reformation and rehabilitation. In Section 12 applies to all juveniles in conflict with law without any discrimination, irrespective of nature or gravity of the offence. The gravity of the offence is not stand alone ground for denying bail. The word 'shall' used in Section 12 signifies that bail is rule, and the embargo on the liberty of the child is only in the three exceptional situations listed in the proviso, as these are situations that are deemed not to be in the best interest of the child. In Juvenile in conflict with law Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9566 of 2024 and re-exploitation of children in orphanages in the State of Tamilnadu Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2020) 14 SCC 327. The Supreme Court unequivocally reiterated the mandatory nature of bail under Section 12 of the J.J. Act unless proviso is applicable.

15. In this case learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Gorakhpur has not opined specific the reasonable findings in light of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 on the basis of reliable material/evidence available on record. Thus, the finding of the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court appears to be based upon assumption and speculation. During the course of arguments it has been admitted that the juvenile Mr. X is about to 16 years only and the age of the victim is also about to 16 years. The revisionist/juvenile has been declared by the J.J.B. that he was below 18 years at the time of occurrence. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted in this regard that both are the consenting party and the revisionist has not committed any offence but he has falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. In the report of District Probation Officer, Gorakhpur it has been stated that the juvenile has not seen previously to have addict of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or he had not seen along with any criminal but he opined that he may expose moral, psychological danger with some known criminal in future. This revision has been filed by the sister Tara Devi wife of Mohan Nishad of the juvenil X and, she undertakes to address the statutory concerned expressing section 12 of the Act as to safety and well being of the revisionist/juvenile on his release.

16. Thus, on the basis of observations as made hereinabove, it appears that the findings recorded by the J.J Board and learned court below are in conflict with settled principle in law, for the purpose to grant bail and are erroneous and contrary to the law laid down by this court and Apex Court. Thus, the J.J. Board and appellate court committed legal and jurisdictional error by way of passing impugned orders. Consequently, those orders cannot be sustained. The impugned orders are hereby set aside.

17. In view of the observations made above, the present criminal revision is allowed. Let the revisionist, X (Juvenile), involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail, on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each of like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned/J.J.B. through his guardian 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 concerned trial Court/J.J.B. 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/J.J.B. may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.