High Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

2. 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 16.07.2024, passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.14 / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sitapur, in Criminal Appeal No. 24/2024 and also order dated 04.112023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur in Bail Application of revisionist, arising out of case Crime No. 607/2022, under sections 302, 323, 504/34 IPC, Police Station Ramkot, District Sitapur, 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 facts of the case as articulated in the First Information Report bearing its No. 607 of 2022, under Sections 302, 323, 504, 34 iPC, Police Station Ramkot, District Sitapur is that the accused persons including the applicant/ revisionist were cutting the tree located in the land of the informant. After receiving information, the husband of the complainant along with his brother and son reached to the spot and objected the cutting of the tree, but the accused got angry and resultantly attacked and killed the husband and devar of the complainant. It is submitted that the allegation levelled against the juvenile, who is aged about 15 years at the time of incident is false. The applicant/ revisionist is in jail since 27.11.2022 and has spent 2 and half years in jail. He has no criminal history in his credit.

4. It is submitted that the only allegation against the revisionist is that he is having 'Danda' while as per the statement of eye witnesses the fatal blow was given by his father- Sunil. 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. It has been informed that there is nothing adverse in the report of the Probationary Officer and the mother has filed present application stating that he will look after the juvenile in his care and custody in case he is enlarged on bail. 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 as well as learned counsel for the complainant 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 2 and half years.

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 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.

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 06.07.2024 and 06.06.2024 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 "X" Juvenile involved in case Crime No. 607/2022, under sections 302, 323, 504/34 IPC, Police Station Ramkot, District Sitapur, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his "mother", 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, 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 she 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. . Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Muk (Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

2. 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 16.07.2024, passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.14 / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sitapur, in Criminal Appeal No. 24/2024 and also order dated 04.112023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur in Bail Application of revisionist, arising out of case Crime No. 607/2022, under sections 302, 323, 504/34 IPC, Police Station Ramkot, District Sitapur, 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 facts of the case as articulated in the First Information Report bearing its No. 607 of 2022, under Sections 302, 323, 504, 34 iPC, Police Station Ramkot, District Sitapur is that the accused persons including the applicant/ revisionist were cutting the tree located in the land of the informant. After receiving information, the husband of the complainant along with his brother and son reached to the spot and objected the cutting of the tree, but the accused got angry and resultantly attacked and killed the husband and devar of the complainant. It is submitted that the allegation levelled against the juvenile, who is aged about 15 years at the time of incident is false. The applicant/ revisionist is in jail since 27.11.2022 and has spent 2 and half years in jail. He has no criminal history in his credit.

4. It is submitted that the only allegation against the revisionist is that he is having 'Danda' while as per the statement of eye witnesses the fatal blow was given by his father- Sunil. 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. It has been informed that there is nothing adverse in the report of the Probationary Officer and the mother has filed present application stating that he will look after the juvenile in his care and custody in case he is enlarged on bail. 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 as well as learned counsel for the complainant 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 2 and half years.

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 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.

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 06.07.2024 and 06.06.2024 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 "X" Juvenile involved in case Crime No. 607/2022, under sections 302, 323, 504/34 IPC, Police Station Ramkot, District Sitapur, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his "mother", 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, 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 she 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. . Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Muk (Alok Mathur, J.)