Allahabad High Court
Juvenile -X vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56812 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6709 of 2023 Revisionist :- Juvenile -X Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- A Kumar Srivastava,Aakansha Singh Chandraul,Ashwani Kumar Pathak,Brijesh Kumar Verma,Mithyanjay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1-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 05.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No. 1, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 2023 and against order dated 09.11.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur in Case Crime No. 562 of 2023, under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Section 7 C.L.A. ACT and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Barhalganj, District Gorakhpur (State vs. Sunil Yadav), whereby, the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer of bail of accused-revisionist.
2-Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the record.
3-As per the prosecution case, informant-Anurag Kumar has lodged an F.I.R. on 26.07.2023 against seven accused persons, namely, Sunil Yadav, Arvind Yadav, Ramnath Yadav, Rajesh, Arvind, Govind, Monu Yadav and other five unknown persons making general allegation of assault against them by lathi-danda. F.I.R. also alleges that a bullet was fired at his father, whereby, he died at the spot.
4-Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 26.07.2023 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 26.10.2023 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 15 years 02 months and 25 days on the date of alleged incident. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 28.07.2023.
5-As to the offence alleged, it is submitted that the revisionist has falsely been implicated in the case with ulterior motive. The revisionist is not named in the F.I.R. and no specific role has been attributed to the revisionist. 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. Co-accused Sachin Yadav, Jaybind @ Chillu Yadav, Surya Prakash Yadav, Ankit Yadav, Vinay Yadav, Chandrashekhar Yadav, Nagendra Yadav, Shivam Yadav, Monu Yadav, Arvind Yadav and Rakesh Yadav have been granted bail vide orders dated 24.11.2023, 31.01.2024, 08.02.2024, 19.02.2024 and 28.02.2024 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 10551 of 2023, 10904 of 2023, 10916 of 2023, 10938 of 2023, 197 of 2024, 211 of 2024, 727 of 2024, 11492 of 2023, 11741 of 2023, 12079 of 2023 and 12308 of 2023 respectively.
6-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.
7-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 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015.
8-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 circumstance, 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 circumstance. 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 since 28.07.2023 against the maximum sentence of three years in case of conviction. Co-accused, who are not named in the F.I.R., have also been granted bail, as noted above.
9-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:-
(i) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or
(ii) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or
(iii) 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 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 Court below are erroneous and cannot be sustained. The aforesaid impugned orders dated 05.12.2023 and 09.11.2023 are hereby set aside.
12-Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed.
13-Let the revisionist Juvenile -X, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his uncle (elder father)/natural guardian, namely, Kamlesh 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 :- 17.4.2025
Saurabh
[ad_1]
Source link