X (Minor) Thru. His Natural Guardian Father v. Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another .....Opposite Party(s)

"Shri Muzambil Asad, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 prays for and is granted two weeks' and no more time to file counter affidavit. List thereafter. It is made clear that on the next date of listing, the case would not be adjourned and appropriate order would be passed even in absence of learned counsel for opposite party no.2."

2. Today when the case is called out, no one appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 to oppose the present case which relates to enlargement of juvenile on bail. In these circumstances, the Court proceeded to hear the instant bail revision on merits.

3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

4. 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 28.08.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2024, which was preferred against the order dated 03.07.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri, arising out of Case Crime No. 146 of 2024, under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 5 L/6 of POCSO Act and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Mitauli, District-Lakhimpur Kheri.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist has been 2 CRLR No. 1077 of 2024 falsely implicated in the case, inasmuch as, the revisionist has not committed any offence as alleged and the prosecution story is false, concocted.

6. It is further submitted that the revisionist, a juvenile, has been incarceration since

23.04.2024. He has no prior criminal history, which fact has not been disputed by the opposite side. As per Section 18(1)(g) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the maximum punishment that can be awarded to a juvenile is three years which is however, subject to the other provisions of the Act of 2015 including Section 21. Therefore, considering the period of incarceration already undergone, the juvenile is entitled to be released on bail.

7. It is also stated that according to the medical opinion, the victim at the relevant point of time was between 13-17 years and this age is subject to the evidence adduced by the parties before the trial Court and at this stage, benefit of various pronouncements on this aspect be extended in favour of revisionist. It is further stated that medical opinion also does not support the story of the prosecution.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist stated that upon a perusal of the FIR in connection with revisionist is in incarceration as also statement(s) of victim recorded in terms of Section 161 CrPC would indicate that revisionist and the victim both were adolescent at the time of incident and were in love affair and victim on her own volition accompanied the revisionist and went to Ludhiyana and she never objected the company of the revisionist. While making statement in terms of Section 164 CrPC, appears to be under pressure of family, the victim changed her version. These facts also indicate that the story of the prosecution based upon the statement of victim in terms of Section 164 CrPC is concocted.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that taking note of period of incarceration as also the 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), according to 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, the revisionist is entitled to be released on bail. 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 3 CRLR No. 1077 of 2024 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."

10. 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."

11. 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)

12. It is further stated that in these circumstances, the revisionist is entitled to be enlarged on bail and in case he is enlarged on bail, 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.

13. 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.

14. Thus, having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case including the statements of the victim and period of incarceration as also the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future and intent of Section 12 of the Act of 2015, I find 4 CRLR No. 1077 of 2024 force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

15. The order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2024, which was preferred against the order dated 03.07.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri, arising out of Case Crime No. 146 of 2024, under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 5 L/6 of POCSO Act and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Mitauli, District-Lakhimpur Kheri, are hereby set aside.

16. Let X (Minor) Thru. His Natural Guardian Father, 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.

17. 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. September 22, 2025 Vinay/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) VINAY KUMAR VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

"Shri Muzambil Asad, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 prays for and is granted two weeks' and no more time to file counter affidavit. List thereafter. It is made clear that on the next date of listing, the case would not be adjourned and appropriate order would be passed even in absence of learned counsel for opposite party no.2."

2. Today when the case is called out, no one appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 to oppose the present case which relates to enlargement of juvenile on bail. In these circumstances, the Court proceeded to hear the instant bail revision on merits.

3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

4. 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 28.08.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2024, which was preferred against the order dated 03.07.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri, arising out of Case Crime No. 146 of 2024, under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 5 L/6 of POCSO Act and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Mitauli, District-Lakhimpur Kheri.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist has been 2 CRLR No. 1077 of 2024 falsely implicated in the case, inasmuch as, the revisionist has not committed any offence as alleged and the prosecution story is false, concocted.

6. It is further submitted that the revisionist, a juvenile, has been incarceration since

23.04.2024. He has no prior criminal history, which fact has not been disputed by the opposite side. As per Section 18(1)(g) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the maximum punishment that can be awarded to a juvenile is three years which is however, subject to the other provisions of the Act of 2015 including Section 21. Therefore, considering the period of incarceration already undergone, the juvenile is entitled to be released on bail.

7. It is also stated that according to the medical opinion, the victim at the relevant point of time was between 13-17 years and this age is subject to the evidence adduced by the parties before the trial Court and at this stage, benefit of various pronouncements on this aspect be extended in favour of revisionist. It is further stated that medical opinion also does not support the story of the prosecution.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist stated that upon a perusal of the FIR in connection with revisionist is in incarceration as also statement(s) of victim recorded in terms of Section 161 CrPC would indicate that revisionist and the victim both were adolescent at the time of incident and were in love affair and victim on her own volition accompanied the revisionist and went to Ludhiyana and she never objected the company of the revisionist. While making statement in terms of Section 164 CrPC, appears to be under pressure of family, the victim changed her version. These facts also indicate that the story of the prosecution based upon the statement of victim in terms of Section 164 CrPC is concocted.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that taking note of period of incarceration as also the 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), according to 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, the revisionist is entitled to be released on bail. 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 3 CRLR No. 1077 of 2024 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."

10. 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."

11. 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)

12. It is further stated that in these circumstances, the revisionist is entitled to be enlarged on bail and in case he is enlarged on bail, 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.

13. 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.

14. Thus, having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case including the statements of the victim and period of incarceration as also the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future and intent of Section 12 of the Act of 2015, I find 4 CRLR No. 1077 of 2024 force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

15. The order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2024, which was preferred against the order dated 03.07.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri, arising out of Case Crime No. 146 of 2024, under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 5 L/6 of POCSO Act and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Mitauli, District-Lakhimpur Kheri, are hereby set aside.

16. Let X (Minor) Thru. His Natural Guardian Father, 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.

17. 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. September 22, 2025 Vinay/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) VINAY KUMAR VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench