Juvenile X, Thru. His Father and Natural Guardian Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35229

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 911 of 2024

Revisionist :- Juvenile X, Thru. His Father And Natural Guardian Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Nijam Ahamad,Prashansa Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant revision has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

¶8

"To quash the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O Act), District- Ambedkarnagar, in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2024, Satendra Chamar V/s State of U.P, as well as impugned order dated 4.07.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar, on the bail application moved by the revisionist in case crime no. 138 of 2024 under Sections 376D, 506 Indian Penal Code, relating to Police Station- Ahirauli, District-Ambedkarnagar, in the interest of Law and Justice; to release the revisionist on bail in case crime no. 138 of 2024, under Sections 376D, 506 Indian Penal Code, relating to Police Station- Ahirauli, District- Ambedkarnagar, during the pendency of his trial."

¶9

It is evident from the record that notice has already been served on the private respondent, but no one has put in appearance on behalf of private respondent.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist, who is juvenile, is aged about 13 years. She further submits that the victim was aged about 18 years 03 months at the time of incident and as per the prosecution case, the revisionist committed rape with her, but he was not internally examined medically. She next submits that the D.P.O. has submitted a very sketchy report. She also submits that the revisionist is in confinement since 23.05.2024 and the victim has already been examined. The learned trail Court failed to appreciate the facts of the case and rejected the bail application of the revisionist, and the appeal was also rejected. She lastly submits that the revisionist is a minor boy and co-accused, namely, Sanjay Mishra has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.10.2024 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 2503 of 2024, hence, the revisionist may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the revisionist. However, he does not dispute the fact the fact that co-accused, namely, Sanjay Mishra has already been enlarged on bail.

¶12

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (Act) has been enacted with object to reform and protect the future career of children below the age of 18 years. The main purpose of this Act is to keep the juvenile out of company and society of habitual criminals and to keep them in place of safety. The parameter and guidelines for assessment of plea of bail of a juvenile has been provided in Section 12 of the Act which is as under:-

¶13

"When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety 1[or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution of fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release 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

When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under subsection (1) by the officer incharge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board.

¶15

When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order."

¶16

Thus it is clear that provision for release to a juvenile has overriding effect to any provision contained in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force. According to this provision, a duty has been cost to grant bail to a juvenile unless there is a reasonable ground for plea that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into organization with any known criminal or exposed the said juvenile to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person release would defeat the end of justice.

¶17

From perusal of impugned judgement and order passed by the appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board, it transpires that both the Courts below have passed the impugned judgement and order in cursory manner without placing due reliance on the report submitted by the District Probation Officer as well as facts and circumstances of this case. The

¶18

aforesaid orders are not in accordance with the mandate of Section 12 of the Act. The impugned judgement and orders are liable to be set aside.

¶19

Consequently, the revision succeeds and is allowed . The order dated 18.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O Act), DistrictAmbedkarnagar in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2024 and the impugned order dated 04.07.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar are hereby set aside .

¶20

Let the revisionist - Juvenile X be released on bail in the aforesaid criminal case and be given into custody of his natural guardian on furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶21

i. That the natural guardian/father of the revisionist will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail, the juvenile will not be permitted to go into contact or association with any known or unknown criminal or exposed to any moral or physical danger and will not indulge in any criminal activity and he will make best effort for improvement of juvenile.

¶22

ii. That the revisionist and his natural guardian shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶23

Order Date :- 10.6.2025 Arpan

¶24

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

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

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

Vishal Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Mahendra Kumar @ Mahendra Jaiswal and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lal Bahadur Shastri Bhawan Lko. and 2 Others

Mahek Vimal Thru. Her Husband Satyam Verma @ Siddharth Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and 5 Others

Nitin Vikram Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jyoti @ Babli Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko

Juvenile X, Thru. His Father and Natural Guardian vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another