X Juvenile v. State of U.P. and Another) and against order dated
Case Details
6-It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is not named in the F.I.R. It is next submitted that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in this case on the confessional statement of co-accused Ishaq Ali and Irfan, which is not admissible in evidence. There is no eye witness of the incident and there is no recovery of any incriminating material from the possession of the revisionist. The revisionist has no criminal history to his credit. Co-accused Ishtiyaq who is also juvenile has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.01.2025 in Criminal Revision No. 4627 of 2024. The case of present revisionist stands on similar footing to that of co- accused Ishtiyaq, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 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 7-Learned Additional Advocate 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-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 20.12.2023 against the maximum sentence of three years in case of conviction. 9-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. 10-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. 11-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 07.08.2024 and 18.06.2024 are hereby set aside. 12-Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed. 13-Let the revisionist X Juvenile, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his mother, namely, Shyara Khatoon 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 :- 12.5.2025 Saurabh SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
6-It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is not named in the F.I.R. It is next submitted that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in this case on the confessional statement of co-accused Ishaq Ali and Irfan, which is not admissible in evidence. There is no eye witness of the incident and there is no recovery of any incriminating material from the possession of the revisionist. The revisionist has no criminal history to his credit. Co-accused Ishtiyaq who is also juvenile has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.01.2025 in Criminal Revision No. 4627 of 2024. The case of present revisionist stands on similar footing to that of co- accused Ishtiyaq, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 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 7-Learned Additional Advocate 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-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 20.12.2023 against the maximum sentence of three years in case of conviction. 9-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. 10-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. 11-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 07.08.2024 and 18.06.2024 are hereby set aside. 12-Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed. 13-Let the revisionist X Juvenile, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his mother, namely, Shyara Khatoon 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 :- 12.5.2025 Saurabh SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad