Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2024 · High Court · 2025

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P., learned counsel for the complainant / informant and perused the record. As per the prosecution case, complainant Subhawati Devi lodged a first information report on 24.11.2023 against unknown person making allegation inter alia that on 24.11.2023 at about 08:00 P.M., her son Deepu Paswan had gone to the house of Aatma Singh to attend Tilak ceremony, where some unknown persons have committed murder of her son. Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 24.11.2023 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 15.03.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 15 years, 04 months and 20 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 opposite party No.2. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 22.12.2023. 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 the revisionist is not named in the first information report. The complainant is not an eye-witness of the incident. It is also submitted that the case of the revisionist stands on identical footing to that of co- accused Manish Kumar Verma, Vishal Gupta and Neeraj Paswan, who have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 07.02.2024, 23.02.2024 and 08.04.2024 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 898 of 2024 and 1187 of 2024 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13426 of 2024. 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 Children) Act, 2015. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State vehemently opposed the present 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. 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 Children) Act, 2015. 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 22.12.2023 against the maximum sentence of three years in case of conviction. 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:- (1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or (2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or (3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 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 parties/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. 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 18.05.2024 and 19.04.2024 are hereby set aside. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed. Let the revisionist "X- Juvenile" involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his father, namely, Ajay Kumar Verma, 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. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Shubham SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P., learned counsel for the complainant / informant and perused the record. As per the prosecution case, complainant Subhawati Devi lodged a first information report on 24.11.2023 against unknown person making allegation inter alia that on 24.11.2023 at about 08:00 P.M., her son Deepu Paswan had gone to the house of Aatma Singh to attend Tilak ceremony, where some unknown persons have committed murder of her son. Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 24.11.2023 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 15.03.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 15 years, 04 months and 20 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 opposite party No.2. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 22.12.2023. 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 the revisionist is not named in the first information report. The complainant is not an eye-witness of the incident. It is also submitted that the case of the revisionist stands on identical footing to that of co- accused Manish Kumar Verma, Vishal Gupta and Neeraj Paswan, who have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 07.02.2024, 23.02.2024 and 08.04.2024 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 898 of 2024 and 1187 of 2024 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13426 of 2024. 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 Children) Act, 2015. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State vehemently opposed the present 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. 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 Children) Act, 2015. 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 22.12.2023 against the maximum sentence of three years in case of conviction. 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:- (1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or (2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or (3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 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 parties/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. 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 18.05.2024 and 19.04.2024 are hereby set aside. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed. Let the revisionist "X- Juvenile" involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his father, namely, Ajay Kumar Verma, 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. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Shubham SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad