Allahabad High Court
Juvenile Delinquent vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 21 March, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41817 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3153 of 2024 Revisionist :- Juvenile Delinquent Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajay Bahadur Yadav,Pramod Kumar Varma,Sanjeev Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
The present criminal revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 05.06.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.1, Deoria in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2024, and against the order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Deoria in Bail Application No.66 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.155 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, police station Bhatpar Rani, district Deoria, whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer of bail of accused-revisionist.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the record.
As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant, who is mother of the victim lodged F.I.R. on 16.09.2023 under Sections 363 IPC against the revisionist making allegation inter-alia that on 12.09.2023 at about 01:00 O' Clock her daughter aged about 13 years was enticed away by the revisionist.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in this case. The victim in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has stated inter-alia that she knows the applicant for last one and half years she used to talk to him on mobile. On 12.09.2023 applicant called her to Mairwa station, then she took a bus from Bahiyari and reached Mairwa station. From there, she along with applicant had gone to Hazipur and thereafter they went to Guwahati, where they solemnized marriage and started living with each other as husband and wife. Physical relation was also made between them. When they came to know about the F.I.R. lodged in the matter, then they were returning but on the way police was arrested them. It is also pointed out that the victim refused for her internal examination. On the strength aforesaid statement of victim, it is argued that in-fact the victim herself was inclined towards the revisionist and she has not made allegation of any misdeed against the revisionist against her will.
Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 12.09.2023 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 15.04.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 15 years, 8 months and 4 days on the date of alleged incident. It is next submitted that aforesaid order declaring the revisionist as juvenile has attained finality because the same has not been challenged by the opposite party No.2. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 29.01.2024.
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, aforesaid 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 Child) Act, 2015.
Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State vehemently opposed the present revision but could not dispute the factum of the case as argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist.
Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I find that it is not in dispute that the victim and revisionist both are minor. Under the facts of this case possibility of relationship between them may also be the result of mutual innocence and biological attraction towards each other, therefore in justice delivery system it is also necessary to consider the other ground realities of the society in an appropriate cases while deciding bail applications because each case turns on its own facts and even a little difference between two cases may alter the entire aspect of the matter.
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 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:-
(1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or (2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or (3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
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 parties, 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.
Considering the above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are erroneous and cannot be sustained. The aforesaid impugned orders dated 05.06.2024 and 26.04.2024 are hereby set aside.
Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed.
Let the revisionist Juvenile Delinquent, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his father, namely, Madan Yadav, who is his natural guardian with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(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;
(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.
Order Date :- 21.3.2025//Sanjeet