Juvenile Offender B as Per Appellate Order vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29574

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 325 of 2024

Revisionist :- Juvenile Offender B As Per Appellate Order Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Amitabh Kumar Tripathi,Ashish Kumar Shukla,Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Amitabh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite parties.

¶8

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 29.02.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Court/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Pratapgarh passed in Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2023, thereby rejecting the criminal appeal preferred by the revisionist against order dated 26.10.2023, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Case Crime No. 170 of 2023, under Sections 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Leelapur, District - Pratapgarh 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.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist while assailing the impugned orders has submitted that the revisionist is accused in Case Crime No. 170 of 2023, under Sections 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Leelapur, District - Pratapgarh and is in custody since 09.07.2023 and has spent nearly one year and ten months in custody.

¶10

It is next submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix has stated that she has voluntarily gone with the revisionist and stayed with him, where they maintained physical relations. It is submitted that report of Probationary Officer also does not disclose any adverse material against the revisionist, nor any apprehension has been raised that if released on bail the revisionist will get into association with anti social elements.

¶11

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that present revision has been filed by the father of the revisionist stating that he is ready to look after his son and prevent him from his any association with anti social elements. It is also urged that the revisionist is in custody since last one year and ten months and does not have any 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 one year and ten months.

¶16

This Court has also gone through the report of Probationary Officer, who has not returned any adverse report against the revisionist for releasing him on bail.

¶17

The Court has to see whether the opinion of the appellate

¶18

Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the 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 29.02.2024 and 26.10.2023 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 Offender - B " involved in Case Crime No. 170 of 2023, under Sections 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Leelapur, District - Pratapgarh, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his "father C", 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 :- 19.5.2025 A. Verma

¶30

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶31

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

Juvenile Offender B as Per Appellate Order v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile Offender B as Per Appellate Order v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

Satyendra Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Sheikh Mohammad Kashef Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Juvenile X,Thru. His Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 3 Others

Dhirendra Kumar vs Principal Judge, Family Court, Unnao and Another

Arif vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Sona Devi @ Sonpati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another