Allowed

Delinquent Child X Thru. His Mother Y v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2025CRLR/175/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A juvenile accused of kidnapping and rape challenged the refusal of bail by the Juvenile Justice Board and appellate court. The High Court held gravity of the offence is not a ground under Section 12 and, noting the victim did not support the prosecution case and a favourable probation officer's report, allowed revision and granted bail.

What the court decided

AI extract

Delinquent Child X Thru. His Mother Y Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13382

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 175 of 2025

¶4

Revisionist :- Delinquent Child X Thru. His Mother Y Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Ashish Kumar Tiwari

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶8

Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Nijam Ahmad on behalf of complainant is taken on record.

¶9

The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the judgment and order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar in Bail Application No.224/2023 arising out of Case Crime no.150/2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act, P.S. Hanswar, Distt. Ambedkar Nagar and order dated 16.01.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge (POCSO Act), Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.02 of 2025.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that revisionist is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The victim in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has denied the prosecution case. The victim was 17 years and one month's old on the date of occurrence. The revisionist was also juvenile aged about 17 years, 11 months. The final report was filed and after filing of the final report further investigation was directed where only on the basis of the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the charge-sheet has been filed. The victim initially has denied to undergo the medical examination however at a belated stage regarding the offence which took place on 03.08.2023, the second medical was conducted on 02.09.2023 in which there was also no corroborative injury. The applicant is in jail since 14.07.2024.

¶11

It is next submitted that the District Probation officer, Ambedkar

¶12

Nagar in his report has stated that during his inquiry he has found that the conduct of the applicant was normal in the village. The physical condition has been found normal.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the present criminal revision. It is submitted, 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 bail rejection orders to submit that the instant revision may be dismissed. 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'.

¶14

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:-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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; has been in confinement for an unduly long period of time. Even otherwise, there does not appear to exist any factor or

¶20

circumstance mentioned in section 12 of the Act as may dis-entitle the revisionist to grant of bail, at this stage. 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.

¶21

Having considered the submission made by the parties and taking into consideration the impugned judgment and order and the report of the District Probation Officer as also the legal proposition in reference to Section 12 as also Section 3(i)(iv)(v) and (xiv) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, inconsistency in the prosecution case and the fact that victim has not supported the prosecution case in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., I am of the considered view that the learned lower court has committed material irregularity in arriving at the conclusion that the release of the revisionist on bail will defeat the ends of justice and there is possibility that the revisionist may fall in danger physically, morally and psychologically, if released on bail.

¶22

In view of the observations made above, the present criminal revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar in Bail Application No.224/2023 arising out of Case Crime no.150/2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act, P.S. Hanswar, Distt. Ambedkar Nagar and order dated 16.01.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge (POCSO Act), Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.02 of 2025, are set aside and the revisionist is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar subject to the condition that parent of the revisionist will take care of his education and betterment and will not allow to indulge him in any criminal activity and will keep constant check on his activities. Both the sureties are directed to be close relatives of the revisionist juvenile.

¶23

Order Date :- 5.3.2025

¶24

Saurabh Yadav/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Delinquent Child X Thru. His Mother Y v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Delinquent Child X Thru. His Mother Y v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Geeta Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Krishna Kumar Mishra Vs Court of Additional Court Faizabad Now Ayodhya and Another

Santosh Singh @ Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Prakash Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept Lko.

Rizwan Quraishi vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Govt. Lko.

Vineeta Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Labour Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others