High Court · 2025

Revisionist :- X Juvenile Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Brijesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 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 05.06.2024 passed by Judge, Juvenile Court/Additional Session Judge, Court No. 27, Agra in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2024 and against order dated 30.04.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Agra in Case Crime No. 194 of 2023, under Sections 302, 323, 34 IPC, police station Bah, District Agra whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer of bail of accused-revisionist. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the record. As per the prosecution case, in brief, complainant got a first information report lodged on 11.09.2023 with regard to an incident which took place on the same day against the unknown person alleging inter alia that on 11.10.2023 at 08:00 P.M., his elder brother left the home for library. After some time, some unknown persons committed maarpeet with him near orchid of Lambar and left him in a state of unconsciousness and blood is oozing from his head. Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 11.09.2023 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 05.04.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 13 years, 04 months and 05 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 15.09.2023. 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 submitted that the applicant is not named in the first information report. There is no eye-witness of the incident. After registration of the first information report, informant, who is father of the deceased, improved the prosecution case by stating inter alia that while deceased was taken to hospital, he told him that co- accused Naman caught hold him and thereafter the revisionist fired bullet, which hit his head. Referring the statement of doctor, it is also submitted that the doctor has clearly stated that since the deceased was not able to speak, hence statement of the deceased was not recorded. Much emphasis has been given by contending that there is no direct evidence against the applicant. 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 A.G.A. representing the State vehemently opposed the present revision. It has thus been submitted that 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 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 15.09.2023 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 A.G.A. for the 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 05.06.2024 and 30.04.2024 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 mother, namely, Mrs. Geeta 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 :- 9.5.2025 Shubham SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Revisionist :- X Juvenile Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Brijesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 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 05.06.2024 passed by Judge, Juvenile Court/Additional Session Judge, Court No. 27, Agra in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2024 and against order dated 30.04.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Agra in Case Crime No. 194 of 2023, under Sections 302, 323, 34 IPC, police station Bah, District Agra whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer of bail of accused-revisionist. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the record. As per the prosecution case, in brief, complainant got a first information report lodged on 11.09.2023 with regard to an incident which took place on the same day against the unknown person alleging inter alia that on 11.10.2023 at 08:00 P.M., his elder brother left the home for library. After some time, some unknown persons committed maarpeet with him near orchid of Lambar and left him in a state of unconsciousness and blood is oozing from his head. Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 11.09.2023 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 05.04.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 13 years, 04 months and 05 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 15.09.2023. 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 submitted that the applicant is not named in the first information report. There is no eye-witness of the incident. After registration of the first information report, informant, who is father of the deceased, improved the prosecution case by stating inter alia that while deceased was taken to hospital, he told him that co- accused Naman caught hold him and thereafter the revisionist fired bullet, which hit his head. Referring the statement of doctor, it is also submitted that the doctor has clearly stated that since the deceased was not able to speak, hence statement of the deceased was not recorded. Much emphasis has been given by contending that there is no direct evidence against the applicant. 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 A.G.A. representing the State vehemently opposed the present revision. It has thus been submitted that 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 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 15.09.2023 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 A.G.A. for the 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 05.06.2024 and 30.04.2024 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 mother, namely, Mrs. Geeta 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 :- 9.5.2025 Shubham SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad