High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86080 Court No. - 78
Legal Reasoning
9-In response, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that from the CCTV footage, it is not evident that the revisionist has committed the offence. There is only circumstantial evidence and it is well settled that in cases of circumstantial evidence, entire chain of circumstances on which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established and should not leave any reasonable ground of doubt. 10-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 06.06.2024 against the maximum sentence of three years in case of conviction. 11-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. 12-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 opposite 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. 13-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 15.01.2025 and 04.12.2024 are hereby set aside. 14-Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed. 15-Let the revisionist XXX Juvenile, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his father namely Akhtar Ali 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. Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 21.5.2025/Saurabh
Arguments
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1291 of 2025 Revisionist :- Xxx Juvenile Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava,Sandeep Kumar 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 15.01.2025 passed by learned Children's Court, Baghpat in Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2024 and against order dated 04.12.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Baghpat in Case Crime No. 154 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Binauli, District Baghpat 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, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the record. 3-It is pointed out by learned A.G.A. that although pursuant to order of this Court dated 24.03.2025, notice has been served upon the complainant, but has chosen not to engage any counsel to oppose the prayer for bail of the revisionist because complainant himself is the deponent of the present case. 4-As per the prosecution case in brief, complainant- Akhtar Ali lodged an F.I.R. on 04.06.2024 against unknown person for the offence under Section 363 I.P.C. alleging inter-alia that his daughter aged about 06 years went to a mosque, Binauli with her brother (revisionist). Thereafter, his daughter, on account of headache, left the mosque alone for her house. F.I.R. further alleges that when the revisionist returned home, it was revealed that his sister did not return. Thereafter, an hectic search was made but she was not found. 5-On 05.06.2024, Mr. Satyaprakash Goyal gave an information to the police that a girl child aged between 7 and 8 years is lying dead on the platform of house of Hukumchand Jain. The In-Charge Inspector along with the complainant-Akhtar Ali reached at the spot where the complainant identified the said dead body as of his daughter. 6-Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 04.06.2024 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 04.10.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 13 years 04 months and 30 days on the date of alleged incident. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 06.06.2024. 7-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is brother of the deceased and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is next submitted that proper investigation was not conducted by the police and thus the revisionist had wrongly been charged with the offence. As per the post-mortem report of the deceased, she was strangulated by her scarf. It is next pointed out that there is no eye witness of the incident and there is no direct evidence against the revisionist. 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. Government 8-Learned Additional Advocate vehemently opposed the present revision by contending that in the CCTV footage, collected by the investigating ofÏcer, it was established that the deceased was going with the revisionist towards the site of incident. 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.