Juvenile Delinquent v. State of U.P. and Others), and against order dated

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P., Ms. Shabista Parveen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 and perused the record.

3. As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant Mohd. Nizam lodged a first information report on 17.10.2024 against five accused persons namely, Panaru alias Ratan Lal, Pankaj, Vishwajeet, Rajan and Ashmit alias Chithar making allegation inter alia that on 16.10.2024, all the accused persons badly beaten his younger brother Shahid with lathi, danda (sticks) and rods, whereby he got seriously injured. He was immediately taken to Trauma Centre, Varanasi where the doctor declared him as brought dead. F.I.R. also alleges that other women of his family also got injured.

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 16.02.2024 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 25.11.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 17 years, 06 months and 28 days on the date of alleged incident. It is next submitted that aforesaid order declaring the revisionist as juvenile has attained finality because the same has not been challenged by the opposite party No.2, the averment in this regard has been made in para No. 14 afÏdavit filed in support of this revision. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 17.10.2024.

5. As to the offence alleged, it is submitted that the revisionist has falsely been implicated in the case with ulterior motive. 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 is further submitted that five accused persons including the applicant who are named in the F.I.R. have been assigned the role of causing injuries to the deceased, whereas as per injury and post mortem report of the deceased, he had sustained only one injury in the nature of contusion. Co-acused Rajan has been granted bail by this Bench vide order dated 10.03.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6241 of 2025. Co-accused Ratan Lal Devanshi alias Panaru and co-accused Pankaj have also been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 24.03.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 9687 of 2025 and 9657 of 2025 respectively.

6. It is further being emphasized that the revisionist does not have any criminal antecedent to his credit. 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.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 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 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015.

8. 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.

9. Considering the facts of the case as noted above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are erroneous and cannot be sustained. The aforesaid impugned orders dated 17.01.2025 and 04.02.2024 are hereby set aside.

10. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed.

11. Let the revisionist-Juvenile Delinquent, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his mother, namely, Smt. Pushpa Devi, 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. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Kashifa KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P., Ms. Shabista Parveen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 and perused the record.

3. As per prosecution case, in brief, complainant Mohd. Nizam lodged a first information report on 17.10.2024 against five accused persons namely, Panaru alias Ratan Lal, Pankaj, Vishwajeet, Rajan and Ashmit alias Chithar making allegation inter alia that on 16.10.2024, all the accused persons badly beaten his younger brother Shahid with lathi, danda (sticks) and rods, whereby he got seriously injured. He was immediately taken to Trauma Centre, Varanasi where the doctor declared him as brought dead. F.I.R. also alleges that other women of his family also got injured.

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 16.02.2024 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 25.11.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 17 years, 06 months and 28 days on the date of alleged incident. It is next submitted that aforesaid order declaring the revisionist as juvenile has attained finality because the same has not been challenged by the opposite party No.2, the averment in this regard has been made in para No. 14 afÏdavit filed in support of this revision. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 17.10.2024.

5. As to the offence alleged, it is submitted that the revisionist has falsely been implicated in the case with ulterior motive. 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 is further submitted that five accused persons including the applicant who are named in the F.I.R. have been assigned the role of causing injuries to the deceased, whereas as per injury and post mortem report of the deceased, he had sustained only one injury in the nature of contusion. Co-acused Rajan has been granted bail by this Bench vide order dated 10.03.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6241 of 2025. Co-accused Ratan Lal Devanshi alias Panaru and co-accused Pankaj have also been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 24.03.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 9687 of 2025 and 9657 of 2025 respectively.

6. It is further being emphasized that the revisionist does not have any criminal antecedent to his credit. 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.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 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 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015.

8. 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.

9. Considering the facts of the case as noted above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are erroneous and cannot be sustained. The aforesaid impugned orders dated 17.01.2025 and 04.02.2024 are hereby set aside.

10. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed.

11. Let the revisionist-Juvenile Delinquent, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his mother, namely, Smt. Pushpa Devi, 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. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Kashifa KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad