X Minor Juvenile Delinquent v. Sate of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated

: Srees Kumar Srivastava, Mohit Nigam, Pranav Pandey, Pranshu Agrawal, Smriti, Srees Kumar Srivastava, Sudhir Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Dheerendra Singh Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short "Act of 2015") has been filed against the judgment and order dated 04.09.2021, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Unnao in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2021 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 25.02.2021, passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Unnao in Application No.58 of 2020 (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.474 of 2020, under Sections 323, 376, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Unnao.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the case, inasmuch as, the revisionist has not committed any offence as alleged and the prosecution story is false, concocted and misconceived.

4. It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 25.09.2020, i.e. about five years, which has not been opposed by the side opposite, and as per Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015 (subject to other provisions of the Act including Section 21 of the Act 2015), the maximum punishment which could be awarded to a juvenile is three years and as such, taking note of the period of incarceration, the juvenile is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In these circumstances, the revisionist is also entitled to be enlarged on bail and 2 CRLR No. 649 of 2021 there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may come with the contact of the known and unknown bet criminals or may be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger.

5. In regard to period of incarceration, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 SCC 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi. Vs. The Director General Bureau of Investigation, passed in Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3610 of 2020), as per which, bail can be granted to those accused persons on the ground that there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and there is a long incarceration period of that accused. Relevant para-16 of the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra) is quoted below:- "This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

6. In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed regarding point of incarceration period and delay in trial. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted below:- "On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court."

7. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA, on the other hand, submitted that no illegality has been committed by both the courts below as there was ample evidence against the revisionist, but he has not disputed the above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist.

8. Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the period of incarceration, i.e. about five years, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

9. The impugned judgment and order dated 04.09.2021, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Unnao in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2021 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate 3 CRLR No. 649 of 2021 of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 25.02.2021, passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Unnao in Application No.58 of 2020 (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.474 of 2020, under Sections 323, 376, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Unnao are set aside.

10. Let Juvenile 'X', of aforesaid Case Crime Number be enlarged on bail, in the above mentioned case on executing a personal bond by his father/natural guardian with two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court/Board concerned and on submission of undertaking on affidavit by his father that he will take due care of the juvenile, will not allow him to indulge in any unlawful or criminal activity or join the company of unlawful elements, will keep him under strict control, shall not attempt or tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses, shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence, shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed either personally or through his counsel, failing which, the order of bail granted to Juvenile may be cancelled.

11. For a period of one year from today, the Juvenile shall appear before the District Probation Officer concerned along with his natural guardian on 10th of every month. August 28, 2025 Anand/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

: Srees Kumar Srivastava, Mohit Nigam, Pranav Pandey, Pranshu Agrawal, Smriti, Srees Kumar Srivastava, Sudhir Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Dheerendra Singh Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short "Act of 2015") has been filed against the judgment and order dated 04.09.2021, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Unnao in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2021 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 25.02.2021, passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Unnao in Application No.58 of 2020 (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.474 of 2020, under Sections 323, 376, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Unnao.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the case, inasmuch as, the revisionist has not committed any offence as alleged and the prosecution story is false, concocted and misconceived.

4. It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 25.09.2020, i.e. about five years, which has not been opposed by the side opposite, and as per Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015 (subject to other provisions of the Act including Section 21 of the Act 2015), the maximum punishment which could be awarded to a juvenile is three years and as such, taking note of the period of incarceration, the juvenile is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In these circumstances, the revisionist is also entitled to be enlarged on bail and 2 CRLR No. 649 of 2021 there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may come with the contact of the known and unknown bet criminals or may be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger.

5. In regard to period of incarceration, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 SCC 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi. Vs. The Director General Bureau of Investigation, passed in Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3610 of 2020), as per which, bail can be granted to those accused persons on the ground that there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and there is a long incarceration period of that accused. Relevant para-16 of the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra) is quoted below:- "This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

6. In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed regarding point of incarceration period and delay in trial. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted below:- "On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court."

7. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA, on the other hand, submitted that no illegality has been committed by both the courts below as there was ample evidence against the revisionist, but he has not disputed the above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist.

8. Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the period of incarceration, i.e. about five years, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

9. The impugned judgment and order dated 04.09.2021, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Unnao in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2021 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate 3 CRLR No. 649 of 2021 of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 25.02.2021, passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Unnao in Application No.58 of 2020 (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.474 of 2020, under Sections 323, 376, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Unnao are set aside.

10. Let Juvenile 'X', of aforesaid Case Crime Number be enlarged on bail, in the above mentioned case on executing a personal bond by his father/natural guardian with two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court/Board concerned and on submission of undertaking on affidavit by his father that he will take due care of the juvenile, will not allow him to indulge in any unlawful or criminal activity or join the company of unlawful elements, will keep him under strict control, shall not attempt or tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses, shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence, shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed either personally or through his counsel, failing which, the order of bail granted to Juvenile may be cancelled.

11. For a period of one year from today, the Juvenile shall appear before the District Probation Officer concerned along with his natural guardian on 10th of every month. August 28, 2025 Anand/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench