Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2024 · High Court

Judgment

1. This revision has been filed challenging the order dated

23.11.2024 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act, District Ambedkar Nagar dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2024 filed under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,

2015 (for short ‘the Act’) and affirming the order dated 07.11.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedker Nagar rejecting the bail application of the revisionist No. 189/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 79/2024, under Sections 363 and 376 I.P.C. and Section ¾ POCSO Act, Police Station Maharua, District Ambedkar Nagar.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist draws my attention to the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C., wherein she stated that she had called the revisionist with an intent to elope with him.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that it is not in dispute that the revisionist was a juvenile aged 17 years 01 month and 08 days on the date of occurrence. He is in jail since 29.06.2024 in connection with the present crime and has completed substantial period of the sentence out of the maximum three years institutional 2 incarceration permissible for a juvenile, under Section 18(1)(g) of the Act.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that thereafter the revisionist applied for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar upon which a report from the District Probation Officer was called for. The bail application was rejected vide order dated 07.11.2024, being aggrieved, the revisionist preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the Act, which was also dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2024. Hence the present criminal revision has been filed before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that co- accused Sheikh Ayub @ Bhura who is similarly circumstanced as the revisionist, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated

10.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9534 of

2024. It is argued that the revisionist being a minor, cannot be held in institutional incarceration any further once co-accused, similarly circumstanced, has been admitted to bail. Further submission is that the case of the revisionist is not on worse footing than that of the co- accused, therefore on principles of parity also the revisionist be released on bail.

8. The provisions relating to bail for a juvenile are carried in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which reads as under: "(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person: Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known 3 criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision. (2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under subsection (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub- section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order. (4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail." A perusal of the said provision show that bail for a juvenile, particularly, one who is under the age of 18 years, is a matter of course and it is only in the event that his case falls under one or the other disentitling categories mentioned in the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act that bail may be refused.

9. Considering the statement of the victim and coupled with the fact that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail and there is no material prescribed for denying the bail under the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act, the revision deserves to be allowed.

10. In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 23.11.2024 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act, District Ambedkar Nagar and the order dated

07.11.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedker Nagar are hereby set aside. The bail application of the revisionist stands allowed. 4

11. Let the revisionist, Junenile “X” through his father be released on bail in Case Crime No. 79/2024, under Sections 363 and 376 I.P.C. and Section ¾ POCSO Act, Police Station Maharua, District Ambedkar Nagar upon his natural guardian furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar subject to the following conditions: (i) That the father of the revisionist will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the natural guardian will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence. (ii) The District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the revisionist and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board concerned on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine. Order Date :- 27.6.2025 Arvind (Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

2015 (for short ‘the Act’) and affirming the order dated 07.11.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedker Nagar rejecting the bail application of the revisionist No. 189/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 79/2024, under Sections 363 and 376 I.P.C. and Section ¾ POCSO Act, Police Station Maharua, District Ambedkar Nagar.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist draws my attention to the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C., wherein she stated that she had called the revisionist with an intent to elope with him.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that it is not in dispute that the revisionist was a juvenile aged 17 years 01 month and 08 days on the date of occurrence. He is in jail since 29.06.2024 in connection with the present crime and has completed substantial period of the sentence out of the maximum three years institutional 2 incarceration permissible for a juvenile, under Section 18(1)(g) of the Act.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that thereafter the revisionist applied for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar upon which a report from the District Probation Officer was called for. The bail application was rejected vide order dated 07.11.2024, being aggrieved, the revisionist preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the Act, which was also dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2024. Hence the present criminal revision has been filed before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that co- accused Sheikh Ayub @ Bhura who is similarly circumstanced as the revisionist, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated

10.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9534 of

2024. It is argued that the revisionist being a minor, cannot be held in institutional incarceration any further once co-accused, similarly circumstanced, has been admitted to bail. Further submission is that the case of the revisionist is not on worse footing than that of the co- accused, therefore on principles of parity also the revisionist be released on bail.

8. The provisions relating to bail for a juvenile are carried in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which reads as under: "(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person: Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known 3 criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision. (2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under subsection (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub- section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order. (4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail." A perusal of the said provision show that bail for a juvenile, particularly, one who is under the age of 18 years, is a matter of course and it is only in the event that his case falls under one or the other disentitling categories mentioned in the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act that bail may be refused.

9. Considering the statement of the victim and coupled with the fact that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail and there is no material prescribed for denying the bail under the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act, the revision deserves to be allowed.

10. In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 23.11.2024 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act, District Ambedkar Nagar and the order dated

07.11.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedker Nagar are hereby set aside. The bail application of the revisionist stands allowed. 4

11. Let the revisionist, Junenile “X” through his father be released on bail in Case Crime No. 79/2024, under Sections 363 and 376 I.P.C. and Section ¾ POCSO Act, Police Station Maharua, District Ambedkar Nagar upon his natural guardian furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar subject to the following conditions: (i) That the father of the revisionist will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the natural guardian will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence. (ii) The District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the revisionist and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board concerned on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine. Order Date :- 27.6.2025 Arvind (Pankaj Bhatia,J.)