X Minor Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88208

Court No. - 78

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1341 of 2025

Revisionist :- X Minor Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Akhlendra Pratap Singh,Deleep Kumar Chaudhari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

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 06.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act) Room No. 3, Prayagraj in Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2025 (ABC minor juvenile vs. State of U.P.) and against order dated 17.05.2023 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Allahabad in Case Crime No. 0183 of 2022, under Sections 394, 302, 411 I.P.C. and Sections 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Manda, District Prayagraj whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer of bail of accused-revisionist.

¶7

2-Despite service of notice upon the complainant / informant, no one has put in appearance on his behalf, hence, this Court proceeds to hear this matter on merit.

¶8

3-Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶9

4-As per the prosecution case in brief, informantRakesh Kumar Tiwari who is brother of the deceasedAnil Kumar Tiwari got a first information report lodged on 01.07.2022 for the offence under Sections 394 and 302 I.P.C. against unknown person alleging inter-alia that when his brother was returning from

¶10

his work, some unknown persons have assaulted him with an intention to rob him, due to which he has received injuries and when he was brought to the hospital, the doctor has declared him brought dead.

¶11

5-During investigation, complicity of Sachin, Gulshan Bind, Lal Chand Bind and Ashish Bind came into light and they have been made accused in this case.

¶12

6-Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 30.06.2022 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 02.03.2023of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 16 years, 01 month and 15 days on the date of alleged incident. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 06.08.2022.

¶13

7-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The revisionist is not named in the first information report and he has been only implicated on the basis of recovery of alleged aadhaar card of the deceased. In fact, false recovery has been shown from the possession of the revisionist. It is further submitted that all other co-accused namely Sachin Kumar, Lal Chand Bind @ Rohit and Gulshan Ram Bind (from whose possession knife has been recovered) have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 20.07.2023, 28.08.2023 and 06.09.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 31800 of 2023, 37769 of 2023 and 37802 of 2023 respectively, therefore, the revisionist, under similar accusation, is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. 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,

¶14

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.

¶15

8-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.

¶16

9-Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is no adverse report of District Probation Officer, Prayagraj against the revisionist. I also find that co-accused Sachin Kumar, Lal Chand Bind @ Rohit and Gulshan Ram Bind have been granted bail, as noted above.

¶17

10-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:-

¶18

(i) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or

¶19

(ii) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or

¶20

(iii) that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶21

11-Considering the facts of the case as noted above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned

¶22

Court below are erroneous and cannot be sustained. The aforesaid impugned orders dated 06.02.2025 and 17.05.2023 are hereby set aside.

¶23

12-Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed .

¶24

13-Let the revisionist X Minor, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his father namely Rambabu Bind who is his natural guardian with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶25

(i) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;

¶26

(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;

¶27

(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶28

Order Date :- 23.5.2025 Saurabh

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

X Minor v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

X Minor v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases