State of U.P v. Juvenile), arising out of FIR No

1. Heard Shri Krishan Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, 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 16.07.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 14/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sitapur, in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2024 ("X" Vs. Sate of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur in Criminal Case No. 03 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Juvenile), arising out of FIR No. 618 of 2023, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Laharpur, District- Sitapur.

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, is languishing in jail since 21.11.2023 and he is having no criminal history, which has not been opposed by the side opposite, and as per Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 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.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that incarceration period is much higher in the present case and in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme 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), 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 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 the revisionist has further submitted that long period of detention is cause of action and he has submitted that second bail can be considered on this fresh ground. He has invited attention of this Court towards the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505. The relevant para-4 of the said judgment is quoted below:- "4. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the rival parties, specially the undisputed position that the petitioner has never been accused of having misused the concession of bail, we are of the view, that the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent is extremely unfair. Since all the material witnesses have been examined and cross-examined, the release of the petitioner on bail ought not to have been opposed, especially keeping in mind the medical condition of the petitioner." (Emphasis supplied)

8. Further stated that case of the prosecution is false against the victim which could be inferred from the fact that the victim is more than double age of the juvenile as according to the case of the prosecution, revisionist-juvenile is aged about 16 years and the victim, as per medical opinion, is aged about 28-30 years.

9. Further submission is that the statement(s) recorded in terms of Section(s) 161 and 164 CrPC would indicate that the victim has falsely implicated the present revisionist.

10. Learned AGA for the State, 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 they have not disputed the above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist.

11. Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

12. The impugned judgment and order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 14/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sitapur, in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2024 ("X" Vs. Sate of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur in Criminal Case No. 03 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Juvenile), arising out of FIR No. 618 of 2023, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Laharpur, District- Sitapur, are hereby set aside.

13. Let Juvenile X, Thru. His Father Z 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.

14. 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. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Vinay/- VINAY KUMAR VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Krishan Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, 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 16.07.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 14/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sitapur, in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2024 ("X" Vs. Sate of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur in Criminal Case No. 03 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Juvenile), arising out of FIR No. 618 of 2023, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Laharpur, District- Sitapur.

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, is languishing in jail since 21.11.2023 and he is having no criminal history, which has not been opposed by the side opposite, and as per Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 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.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that incarceration period is much higher in the present case and in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme 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), 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 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 the revisionist has further submitted that long period of detention is cause of action and he has submitted that second bail can be considered on this fresh ground. He has invited attention of this Court towards the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505. The relevant para-4 of the said judgment is quoted below:- "4. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the rival parties, specially the undisputed position that the petitioner has never been accused of having misused the concession of bail, we are of the view, that the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent is extremely unfair. Since all the material witnesses have been examined and cross-examined, the release of the petitioner on bail ought not to have been opposed, especially keeping in mind the medical condition of the petitioner." (Emphasis supplied)

8. Further stated that case of the prosecution is false against the victim which could be inferred from the fact that the victim is more than double age of the juvenile as according to the case of the prosecution, revisionist-juvenile is aged about 16 years and the victim, as per medical opinion, is aged about 28-30 years.

9. Further submission is that the statement(s) recorded in terms of Section(s) 161 and 164 CrPC would indicate that the victim has falsely implicated the present revisionist.

10. Learned AGA for the State, 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 they have not disputed the above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist.

11. Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

12. The impugned judgment and order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 14/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sitapur, in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2024 ("X" Vs. Sate of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur in Criminal Case No. 03 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Juvenile), arising out of FIR No. 618 of 2023, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Laharpur, District- Sitapur, are hereby set aside.

13. Let Juvenile X, Thru. His Father Z 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.

14. 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. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Vinay/- VINAY KUMAR VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench