Juvenile Delinquent v. Mukesh Gupta and Another) and against order dated

2-Heard Shri Vishvendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and Shri Prashank Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant and perused the record. 3-As per prosecution case, in brief, a first information report has been lodged at 02:30 PM on 03.07.2022 by Mukesh Gupta at police station Pinahat, district Agra inter alia with the allegations that his father Suresh Chandra Gupta, aged about 75 years and his mother Smt. Krishna Gupta, aged 72 years, used to live at his ancestral residence at Maru Kasba and police station Pinahat, whereas the complainant along with his family members resides at Shiv Residency at Agra. At about 12.00 he has received a telephone call that some untoward incident has happened with his parents. On his arrival at his ancestral house, he found police and villagers at the place. When he entered the room, he found his father and mother dead. On enquiry, it revealed that some unknown persons have committed the murder of his parents. The FIR further mentions that 25 Tola gold ornaments, 7 kgs. silver ornament and Rs. 15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lac only) in cash were also looted by the miscreants. 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 02.07.2022 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 23.06.2023 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 16 years, 11 months and 21 days, on the date of alleged incident. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 23.06.2023. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that revisionist was not named in the FIR and his name has been surfaced in the statement of co-accused Mangal Singh alias Mangala, who has been granted bail vide order dated 03.01.2025 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18617 of 2023, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. 5-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. 6-Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the revisionist 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. 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 further contended that bail applications of co-accused Mahendra and Sher Singh alias Shera have been rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 47297 of 2022 and 7175 of 2025 vide orders dated 25.01.2023 and 29.4.2025 respective. 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: (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 since the age of revisionist is above 16 years and below 18 years and case 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. Further, it is a double murder case and Rs. 27,500/ (rupees twenty seven thousand five hundred) has also been recovered from the possession of the revisionist at the time of his arrest. Weapon of assault Basuli has also been recovered on the pointing out of the revisionist. 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 :- 20.5.2025 Ishrat MOHAMMAD ISHRAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2-Heard Shri Vishvendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and Shri Prashank Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant and perused the record. 3-As per prosecution case, in brief, a first information report has been lodged at 02:30 PM on 03.07.2022 by Mukesh Gupta at police station Pinahat, district Agra inter alia with the allegations that his father Suresh Chandra Gupta, aged about 75 years and his mother Smt. Krishna Gupta, aged 72 years, used to live at his ancestral residence at Maru Kasba and police station Pinahat, whereas the complainant along with his family members resides at Shiv Residency at Agra. At about 12.00 he has received a telephone call that some untoward incident has happened with his parents. On his arrival at his ancestral house, he found police and villagers at the place. When he entered the room, he found his father and mother dead. On enquiry, it revealed that some unknown persons have committed the murder of his parents. The FIR further mentions that 25 Tola gold ornaments, 7 kgs. silver ornament and Rs. 15,00,000/- (rupees fifteen lac only) in cash were also looted by the miscreants. 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 02.07.2022 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 23.06.2023 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 16 years, 11 months and 21 days, on the date of alleged incident. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 23.06.2023. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that revisionist was not named in the FIR and his name has been surfaced in the statement of co-accused Mangal Singh alias Mangala, who has been granted bail vide order dated 03.01.2025 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18617 of 2023, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. 5-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. 6-Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the revisionist 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. 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 further contended that bail applications of co-accused Mahendra and Sher Singh alias Shera have been rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 47297 of 2022 and 7175 of 2025 vide orders dated 25.01.2023 and 29.4.2025 respective. 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: (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 since the age of revisionist is above 16 years and below 18 years and case 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. Further, it is a double murder case and Rs. 27,500/ (rupees twenty seven thousand five hundred) has also been recovered from the possession of the revisionist at the time of his arrest. Weapon of assault Basuli has also been recovered on the pointing out of the revisionist. 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 :- 20.5.2025 Ishrat MOHAMMAD ISHRAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad