High Court · 2025

3. FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and co- accused Gufran on 08.08.2023 and according to FIR, on

06.08.2023 12 years' old son of the informant along with his friends including Hannan had gone for taking bath in the river but did not return and on 07.08.2023 his dead body was found.

4. It is further mentioned in the FIR that on 06.08.2023 at about 1:30 p.m. in the afternoon, villagers Liyakat and Furkan witnessed the deceased along with applicant and co-accused Gufran. It is further mentioned in the FIR that after sodomy, murder of son of the informant has been committed by applicant and co-accused Gufran.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, however, applicant is named in the FIR along with co-accused Gufran but it is a case, in which, there is no eye-witness account, who can state that applicant and co-accused Gufran committed the murder of the deceased.

6. He further submitted that from the record, however, it reflects, witness Hannan, the friend of the deceased, was along with applicant and co-accused Gufran and his statement has been annexed at page no. 48 of the paper book and from his statement, it reflects, when he was taking bath in the river then on the bank of the river, deceased was sitting along with applicant and co-accused Gufran but subsequently, when he came out from the river then he did not find them and subsequently dead body of the deceased was found in the river, therefore, even from his statement, complicity of the applicant could not be revealed.

7. He further submitted that it appears merely on the basis of suspicion, applicant has been roped in the present matter. He further submitted that deceased and his friend Hannan were tender age boy and according to witness Hannan, deceased was sitting along with applicant and co-accused Gufran on the bank of the river, therefore, if applicant and co-accused Gufran committed sodomy and murder of the deceased then witness Hernan would have definitely witnessed the incident and this fact shows the innocence of the applicant. He further submitted that even applicant is minor boy aged about 16-17 years and he has also moved an application to declare him juvenile before POCSO Court and vide order dated 04.07.2024 he has been declared juvenile and his age was found between 16 to 17 years at the time of incident.

8. He further submitted that, however, applicant did not apply bail under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act and he applied bail under the provisions of Cr.P.C. but facts remained that he is juvenile and, therefore, considering Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, applicant should be enlarged on bail, especially considering the fact that there is no direct evidence against him and he is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 07.08.2023 i.e. for last more than one and half years.

9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case, in which,after committing unnatural sexual offence, a 12 years' old boy has been murdered and just before the incident, applicant and co-accused Gufran were along with the deceased and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no evidence against the applicant.

10. They however, could not dispute, the fact that applicant was along with the deceased and co-accused Gufran and was witnessed by witness Hannan, the friend of the deceased and he was, although, present very near to the place of incident but he could not witness the alleged incident of sodomy and murder. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant has been declared juvenile and his age was found on the date of incident between 16 to 17 years and he is not having any criminal history.

11. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. However, it is a case, in which 12 years' old son of the informant has been murdered and record also suggests that before his death, he was sexually exploited too and as per witness Hannan, when he was taking bath in the river, deceased was sitting along with applicant and co-accused Gufran but surprisingly, he could not witness either the incident of alleged sodomy or murder.

13. Further, from the record, it also reflects, POCSO Court has declared the applicant juvenile as his age was found between 16 to 17 years at the time of incident.

14. Further, however, applicant did not seek bail under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act and he applied bail under the provisions of Cr.P.C. but facts remained, he has been declared juvenile and considering the Article 21 of Constitution of India, in view of this Court, provisions of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act can not be ignored and merely on this ground, his bail application should be withheld.

15. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 07.08.2023 i.e. for last more than one and half years.

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant- Rakib Urf T.T. be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

20. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and co- accused Gufran on 08.08.2023 and according to FIR, on

06.08.2023 12 years' old son of the informant along with his friends including Hannan had gone for taking bath in the river but did not return and on 07.08.2023 his dead body was found.

4. It is further mentioned in the FIR that on 06.08.2023 at about 1:30 p.m. in the afternoon, villagers Liyakat and Furkan witnessed the deceased along with applicant and co-accused Gufran. It is further mentioned in the FIR that after sodomy, murder of son of the informant has been committed by applicant and co-accused Gufran.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, however, applicant is named in the FIR along with co-accused Gufran but it is a case, in which, there is no eye-witness account, who can state that applicant and co-accused Gufran committed the murder of the deceased.

6. He further submitted that from the record, however, it reflects, witness Hannan, the friend of the deceased, was along with applicant and co-accused Gufran and his statement has been annexed at page no. 48 of the paper book and from his statement, it reflects, when he was taking bath in the river then on the bank of the river, deceased was sitting along with applicant and co-accused Gufran but subsequently, when he came out from the river then he did not find them and subsequently dead body of the deceased was found in the river, therefore, even from his statement, complicity of the applicant could not be revealed.

7. He further submitted that it appears merely on the basis of suspicion, applicant has been roped in the present matter. He further submitted that deceased and his friend Hannan were tender age boy and according to witness Hannan, deceased was sitting along with applicant and co-accused Gufran on the bank of the river, therefore, if applicant and co-accused Gufran committed sodomy and murder of the deceased then witness Hernan would have definitely witnessed the incident and this fact shows the innocence of the applicant. He further submitted that even applicant is minor boy aged about 16-17 years and he has also moved an application to declare him juvenile before POCSO Court and vide order dated 04.07.2024 he has been declared juvenile and his age was found between 16 to 17 years at the time of incident.

8. He further submitted that, however, applicant did not apply bail under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act and he applied bail under the provisions of Cr.P.C. but facts remained that he is juvenile and, therefore, considering Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, applicant should be enlarged on bail, especially considering the fact that there is no direct evidence against him and he is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 07.08.2023 i.e. for last more than one and half years.

9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case, in which,after committing unnatural sexual offence, a 12 years' old boy has been murdered and just before the incident, applicant and co-accused Gufran were along with the deceased and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no evidence against the applicant.

10. They however, could not dispute, the fact that applicant was along with the deceased and co-accused Gufran and was witnessed by witness Hannan, the friend of the deceased and he was, although, present very near to the place of incident but he could not witness the alleged incident of sodomy and murder. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant has been declared juvenile and his age was found on the date of incident between 16 to 17 years and he is not having any criminal history.

11. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. However, it is a case, in which 12 years' old son of the informant has been murdered and record also suggests that before his death, he was sexually exploited too and as per witness Hannan, when he was taking bath in the river, deceased was sitting along with applicant and co-accused Gufran but surprisingly, he could not witness either the incident of alleged sodomy or murder.

13. Further, from the record, it also reflects, POCSO Court has declared the applicant juvenile as his age was found between 16 to 17 years at the time of incident.

14. Further, however, applicant did not seek bail under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act and he applied bail under the provisions of Cr.P.C. but facts remained, he has been declared juvenile and considering the Article 21 of Constitution of India, in view of this Court, provisions of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act can not be ignored and merely on this ground, his bail application should be withheld.

15. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 07.08.2023 i.e. for last more than one and half years.

16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

18. Let the applicant- Rakib Urf T.T. be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

20. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad