Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2024 · High Court · 2025

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order dated 24.08.2023 and 04.07.2024 have been passed de hors the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. It is next submitted that at the time of occurrence he was 16 years 8 months and 24 days old. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that in the F.I.R. role of firing is on Venkateshwardutt and in the statement of complainant also Venkateshwardutt has been assigned the role of firing. On the other hand, the eye witness Rajdutt has assigned the role of firing to the present applicant. The statement of another eye witness Sunil Kumar is different who has assigned the role of firing to both applicant and Venkateshwardutt however, an affidavit was given by Sunil Kumar the eye witness after one month on 15.06.2023 alleging that it was Venkateshwardutt Pandey who shot Bhupmani, the deceased and not applicant. He submits that prosecution story is full of contradictions. Even the statement of the eye witnesses does not corroborate the prosecution story and are contradictory. It is submitted that P.W.1 in his statement before the court has again assigned the role of firing to Venkateshwardutt. He further submits that District Probation Officer while submitting the report has given favourable finding while concluding the inquiry. The parameters of the child have been found normal. There is nothing adverse in the report of the District Probation Officer. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the present criminal revision. It is submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that it was the revisionist on whose pointing out the weapon of assault has been recovered. It was a planned murder since the revisionist is charged under Section 149 IPC also therefore, the liability of the revisionist is the same as to that of Venkateshwardutt, the assailant. It is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Act. Under Section 12 of the Act, the prayer for bail of a juvenile may be rejected 'if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice'. 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 the Act. Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail may be refused to a juvenile offender. These 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? Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the bail. It is not a relevant factor while considering to grant bail to the juvenile. It has been so held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB). It has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions of this court. Thus, it remains largely undisputed that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of occurrence; does not appear to be prone to criminal proclivity or criminal psychology, in light of the observations of the D.P.O; has been in confinement for an unduly long period of time. Even otherwise, there does not appear to exist any factor or circumstance mentioned in section 12 of the Act as may dis-entitle the revisionist to grant of bail, at this stage. The revisionist undertakes to address the statutory concerns expressed in section 12 of the Act, as to the safety and well being of the revisionist, upon his release. Having considered the submission made by the parties, contradictory statements of the prosecution witnesses, the affidavit given by the eye witnesses which is on record to the case diary, the statement of P.W.1 before the court, role assigned to the present applicant, the report of DPRO as well as the fact that out of 29 witnesses which are proposed to be examined only one witness has been examined so far and the revisionist is in jail since 26.05.2023 so also the judgment passed in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another : Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 as also the legal proposition in reference to Section 12 as also Section 3(i)(iv)(v) and (xiv) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, I am of the considered view that the learned lower court has committed material irregularity in arriving at the conclusion that the release of the revisionist on bail will defeat the ends of justice and there is possibility that the revisionist may fall in danger physically, morally and psychologically, if released on bail. In view of the observations made above, the present criminal revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda in F.I.R. No.193/2023 and order dated 04.07.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Gonda in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2024, are set aside and the revisionist is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board subject to the condition that parent of the revisionist will take care of his education and betterment and will not allow to indulge him in any criminal activity and will keep constant check on his activities. Both the sureties are directed to be close relatives of the revisionist juvenile. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench