Allahabad High Court
Juvenile Delinquent 'S' (Now Major) vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. ... on 9 May, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27523 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1223 of 2024 Revisionist :- Juvenile Delinquent 'S' (Now Major) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Seema Kashyap,Gyan Singh,Shyam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Gyan Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite parties.
2. Present criminal revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.09.2024, passed by Juvenile Court/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2024 - 'Bal Apchari S Vs. State of U.P. and others under Section 101 thereby rejecting the appeal preferred by the revisionist against order dated 12.7.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Bail application No.39 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.117 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 342, 376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Raniganj, 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.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is a juvenile and accused in case crime No.117 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366, 342, 376, 506 IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act, police station Raniganj, District Pratapgarh. It is the case of the prosecution that the a complaint was filed by brother of the prosecutrix stating that on 8.5.2023 his minor sister aged about 17 years had gone to the filed where the revisionist has taken her away on false promise of marriage. It has further been stated that the sister of the complainant and the revisionist are known to each other for sometime and were in regular touch on mobile phone and subsequent to her recovery her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded where she has stated that she was sexually assaulted by the revisionist. It has been submitted that the revisionist is in jail since 11.6.2023 and has spent nearly one year and 11 months in jail.
4. Accordingly considering the fact that according to the FIR lodged by brother of the prosecutrix the prosecutrix and the revisionist knew each other and were in regular touch on Mobile phone and accordingly it cannot be denied that the prosecutrix had left her home on her own accord and it is only subsequently that she has changed her version alleging forceful sexual assault. Considering the statement of the prosecutrix it is clear that it is not a case of forceful sexual assault and the consent of the prosecutrix is writ large as per her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Apart from the above, we find that the revisionist has been in jail since 11.6.2023 and has spent nearly one year and 11 months in jail. We have also perused the report of the Probationary Officer and do not find any such material so as to enable us to decline the bail of the revisionist. 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.
5. 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.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. 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 ten months.
8. 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.
9. 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 :-
(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.
10. 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.
11. 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 17.01.2025 and 21.12.2024 are hereby set aside. The revisionist has made out a case for his release on bail.
12. Accordingly, present criminal revision is allowed.
13. Let the revisionist "Juvenile Delinquent 'S' " (now major) involved in Case Crime No.117 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 342, 376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Raniganj, District - Pratapgarh, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond 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, threaten the witnesses or in any manner contact the prosecutrix during course of trial;
(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;
(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.
(iv) The revisionist or his family members shall not attempt to make any contact with the prosecutrix or her family members.
(Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 9.5.2025 RKM.