Juvenile X v. State of U.P.) and against order dated
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40643 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 38 of 2024 Revisionist :- Juvenile X Opposite Party :- State Of Up Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dinesh Kumar Pandey,G.A.,Manoj Tripathi,Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal 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 15.12.2023 passed by learned Juvenile Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Maharajganj in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2023 (Juvenile X vs. State of U.P.) and against order dated 27.10.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Maharajganj in Case Crime No. 162 of 2023, under Sections 376, 452, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Nautanwa, District Maharajganj whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer of bail of accused-revisionist.
Legal Reasoning
2-Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the record. 3-As per prosecution case in brief, victim herself lodged an F.I.R. on 30.05.2023 against the revisionist for the alleged offence under Sections 376, 452 and 506 I.P.C. making allegations inter-alia that about 8-9 months back when she was alone at her house, revisionist barged into her house and forcibly made physical relation with her whereby she became pregnant. F.I.R. also alleges that when she had told about her pregnancy to the revisionist, he again entered into her house on 26.03.2023. Thereafter, he was caught by the family members and information was given to the mobile police by dialing 112, on which the police took the revisionist to police station but police after forcibly got a compromise deed written, let off him. Thereafter she was chased away from the police station. 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 26.03.2023 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 09.10.2023 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 17 years, 02 months and 25 days, on the date of alleged incident. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 06.07.2023. 5-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that with regard to an incident in question, the F.I.R. was lodged after delay of eight months without any plausible explanation. In fact, no such incident took place as alleged by the prosecution. 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. 6-Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State vehemently opposed the present criminal revision by contending that merely because the revisionist is a juvenile, it would not entitle him to bail without going into the gravity of the offence and the nature of the crime. The revisionist was caught red handed in the house of the victim. The victim, in her statement recorded before the doctor at the time of her medical examination as well as her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has clearly stated that on account of making forceful physical relation by the revisionist, she is carrying pregnancy of seven months, which is corroborated from the medical examination report dated 01.06.2023, in which it was found that the victim was having pregnancy of 26-28 weeks and thereafter, she has delivered a child. Much emphasis has been given by contending that the revisionist is a person of hardened criminal mind and is also an imminent danger to the public at large. 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. 7-Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that a juvenile offender who is above 16 years of age and below 18 years of age is not entitled as of right to be enlarged on bail. 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. 8-Having gone through the record, this Court finds that the victim, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has supported the version of F.I.R. wherein allegation of committing forceful physical relation has been levelled against the revisionist. Since the age of revisionist is above 16 years and below 18 years and the offence of rape is heinous in nature, his trial is going on as an adult, therefore, in view of the legal position applicable to the present case, in case of conviction of the revisionist, he can be sentenced for more than three years except life or death. In case, the revisionist is released on bail, there is a strong possibility of his being in danger morally, physically or psychologically and he may again get involved in criminal activities. In the matter of bail of juvenile, the Court has to see literally through a prism having three angles, i.e. firstly, the angle of welfare and betterment of the child itself, secondly, the demands of justice to the victim and her family and thirdly, the concerns of society at large. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, in case revisionist is released on bail, then his release would defeat the ends of justice.
Decision
9-In view of the above, the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are not erroneous and cannot be said to be unsustainable. The aforesaid impugned orders are not liable to be interfered with, which are wholly impeccable. 10-As a fall out and consequence of the above, the present criminal revision lacks merit and is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Saurabh Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad