Allowed

Juvenile X Thru. Natural Guardian Uncle v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC23 May 2025CRLR/298/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Juvenile accused of sexual assault under Sections 64(1), 69 BNS sought bail after rejection by the Juvenile Justice Board and appellate court. The High Court held that Section 12 permits refusal only on three specified grounds, not gravity of offence, found no such grounds established, set aside both orders, and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; impugned orders dated 21.02.2025 and 03.02.2025 set aside; juvenile released on bail on personal bond of his guardian uncle with two sureties, subject to trial-conduct conditions.

Juvenile X Thru. Natural Guardian Uncle vs State of U.P… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30945

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 298 of 2025

¶4

Revisionist :- Juvenile X Thru. Natural Guardian Uncle Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ankur Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ankur Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite parties.

¶7

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 21.02.2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Gonda passed in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2025, thereby rejecting the criminal appeal preferred by the revisionist against order dated 03.02.2025, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda in Case No. 273 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 394 of 2024, under Sections 64(1), 69 of BNS, Police Station - Kotwali Dehat, District - Gonda 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.

¶8

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 in the present case.

¶9

It is next submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that according to the first information report on 15.08.2024 the two sisters (prosecutrix) had gone to attend a function to a nearby house and when they were returning hack, one Rashid who is driver of E-Rikshaw gave them lift and stated that he will leave them to their residence. He took them to a sugarcane field and sexually assaulted one of the prosecutrix.

¶10

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that first information report was lodged after five days and revisionist was not named as an accused in the said case. His name surfaced only in the statement recorded under Section 183

¶11

of BNS and it is submitted that the allegations made against him are false. It is also urged that the revisionist is in custody since 17.10.2024 and has spent more then six months in custody and does not have any previous criminal history.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶15

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 six months.

¶16

This Court has also gone through the report of Juvenile Justice Board, where the District Probation Officer has not recorded any thing adverse in connection with the conduct of the revisionist.

¶17

The Court has to see whether the opinion of the appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the

¶18

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 :-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

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 21.02.2025 and 03.02.2025 are hereby set aside. The revisionist has made out a case for his release on bail.

¶24

Accordingly, present criminal revision is allowed .

¶25

Let the revisionist " Juvenile X " involved in Case Crime No. 394 of 2024, under Sections 64(1), 69 of BNS, Police Station - Kotwali Dehat, District - Gonda, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his "uncle", who is his natural guardian with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶26

(i) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence, threaten the witnesses or in any manner contact the prosecutrix during course of trial;

¶27

(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;

¶28

(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.

¶29

Order Date :- 23.5.2025 A. Verma

¶30

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Juvenile X Thru. Natural Guardian Uncle v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile X Thru. Natural Guardian Uncle v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Jyoti Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Pappu Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Prahalad Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shiva, Thru. His Father Putti Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Shrikant and Others vs Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Surendra Kumar and Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and Others