Allowed

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

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2025CRLR/2437/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision allowed. Court held gravity of offence is not a ground to deny bail to a juvenile under Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2000. Impugned orders rejecting bail were set aside, and bail was granted to the juvenile revisionist subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed. Impugned bail rejection orders set aside. Revisionist released on bail on personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions regarding evidence, adjournments, and court appearanc

X Juvenile vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:104419

¶2

Court No. - 47

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2437 of 2025

¶4

Revisionist :- X Juvenile

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ishwar Chandra Tyagi,Ram Charan Lal

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶8

Despite service of notice, no one responds on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

¶9

Heard counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶10

The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by learned Children's Court / Special Judge, POCSO Act, Bareilly in Criminal Juvenile Appeal No. 27 of 2024 (Delinquent Juvenile S/o Sri Pappu Vs. State of U.P. and Others) and order dated 14.08.2024 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly in Case Crime No. 84 of 2024, under Sections- 377, 292, 504 IPC and 11/12, 4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station- Hafizganj, District- Bareilly.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits:

¶12

(i) admittedly, the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of alleged incident being 17 years, 26 days of age; he is in child protection home since 09.03.2024.

¶13

(ii) the revisionist has been falsely implicated;

¶14

(iii) there is no specific or strong objection raised in the DPO report, other than the general and vague observations;

¶15

(iv) there is no criminal history of the revisionist;

¶16

(v) there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;

¶17

(vi) the revisionist has remained confined in the child observation home for an unduly long period of time;

¶18

(vii) none of the grounds contemplated under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are available, to deny the bail

¶19

to the revisionist.

¶20

(ix) therefore, the impugned orders have been assailed as erroneous and contrary to law.

¶21

Learned A.G.A. for the State 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 revisionist rejection orders to submit that the instant revision may be dismissed.

¶22

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'.

¶23

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:-

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

the Act as may disentitle the revisionist to grant of bail, at this stage. The father 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.

¶29

In view of the above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are in conflict with the settled principle in law, for the purpose of grant of bail and are erroneous and contrary to the law laid down by this court. Consequently, those orders cannot be sustained. The impugned orders are hereby set aside.

¶30

In view of the observations made above, the present criminal revision is allowed. Let the revisionist, X Juvenile son of Sri Pappu, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail, on his furnishing personal bond with two sureties each of like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶31

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

¶32

(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;

¶33

(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 Indian Penal Code.

¶34

Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate the order to the Child Observation Home concerned within a week.

¶35

Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Rohit

¶36

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Kailash vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

X Juvenile vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mayank Meena vs State of U.P.

Ashutosh @ Sundaram Tiwari vs State of U.P.

Deepak Tiwari @ Deepu @ Cheeka vs State of U.P.

Dharmveer vs State of U.P.