Allowed

S (Juvenile) Thru. His Guardian/Elder Brother K v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC19 May 2025CRLRD/358/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision by a juvenile against rejection of his bail by the Juvenile Justice Board and appellate court in a kidnapping and rape case. The High Court held gravity of offence is not a ground for refusing juvenile bail under Section 12 JJ Act, set aside both orders and released him on bail through his guardian with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; impugned orders dated 15.05.2024 and 18.03.2024 set aside; revisionist juvenile released on bail through guardian's personal bond with two sureties and conditions.

S (Juvenile) Thru. His Guardian/Elder… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29542

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 358 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- S (Juvenile) Thru. His Guardian/Elder Brother K Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Shiv Pal Singh,Abhay Shankar Tiwari,Ambrish Kumar,Eshan Garg,Prachi Arya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

C.M. Application No. 2 of 2024 for Condonation of delay in filing criminal revision.

¶8

Heard Shri Eshan Garg, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State.

¶9

By means of this application the revisionist has prayed to condone the delay in filing instant revision.

¶10

Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay is sufficient.The delay is bonafide and is liable to be condoned.

¶11

In this regard learned AGA has no objection.

¶12

Accordingly the application for condonation of delay is hereby allowed and the delay in filing the criminal revision is condoned.

¶13

Order on Memo of Revision.

¶14

Heard Shri Eshan Garg, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State while and perused the record.

¶15

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 15.05.2024, passed by the learned Child Court, Court Room No. 44, Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2024 (Shyam Kashuyap (changed name) Versus State of U.P. as well as order dated 18.3.2024 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Barabanki in Bail Application of revisionist, arising out of case Crime No.

¶16

29/2024, under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Haidergarh, District Barabanki, 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.

¶17

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that according to prosecution initially on 25.1.2024 at about 18.17 hours a First Information Report was lodged by the complainant/ opposite party no.2 (father of alleged victim) in Case Crime No. 29/2024, under Section 363 IPC, Police Station Haidergarh, District Barabanki against unknown with the allegations that on 24.1.2024 at about 6.00 p.m, his daughter Kiran, aged about 19 years and daughter of his neighbor Shanti namely, Mahak @ Kanti, aged about 17 years went from house without informing to anyone and after search there is no whereabouts of both girls. The present accused-revisionist was not named in the FIR. It is also submitted that co-accused, namely Sujeet Kashyap who is alleged to be involved in the case has already been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 24.7.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail ApplicationNo. 4266 of 2024 and a copy of which has been annexed with this revision. The revisionist, who has no criminal history is in jail since 16.026.2024 and spent more than 01 year and 03 months in jail.

¶18

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. He next submitted that the revisionist was not named in the F.I.R. 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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶21

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 01 year and 03 months.

¶22

This Court has also gone through the report of Juvenile Justice Board, who have returned adverse report against the revisionist for releasing him on bail. It is submitted that the said report is contested by learned counsel for the revisionist by submitting that it is devoid of any judicial sanctity and hence cannot be relied upon.

¶23

The Court has to see whether the opinion of the appellate 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 :-

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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 learned AGA, 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.

¶28

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 15.05.2024 and 18.03.2024 are hereby set aside. The

¶29

revisionist has made out a case for his release on bail.

¶30

Accordingly, present criminal revision is allowed.

¶31

Let the revisionist S"Juvenile involved in case Crime No. 29/2024, under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Haidergarh, District Barabanki, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his "Brother", who is his natural guardian with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶32

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

¶33

(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;

¶34

(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.

¶35

(iv) The revisionist or his family members shall not attempt to make any contact with the prosecutrix or her family members.

¶36

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶37

Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Muk

¶38

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

S (Juvenile) Thru. His Guardian/Elder Brother K v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S (Juvenile) Thru. His Guardian/Elder Brother K v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Juvenile X Thru. Thru. His Father Y Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

X , Juvenile Delinquent in Case Crime No. 117/2024 ,Thru. His Father Xxx Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Vikash Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Amethi and Another

Divakar vs Vijay Pandey and Another

Shiv Sagar @ Pujari and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Nagendra Kumar @ Nagendra Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and 2 Others