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

2. Heard counsel for the revisionist, Shri Anubhav Awasthi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

3. 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 02.08.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2024 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate of U.P. & another), which was preferred against the order dated 09.09.2024, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Bail Application No.1638 of 2024, (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.408 of 2023, under Sections 147, 302, 201, 364, 120-B, 376-D I.P.C. & Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Rajsultanpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar.

4. While pressing the present revision, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that co-accused, namely, Archana Singh @ Pinki Singh, Nitesh Nishad and Rahul Maurya have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 21.05.2024, 12.08.2024 and 06.12.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.1167 of 2024, 1743 of 2024 and Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.11126 of 2024 respectively. Relevant portion of order dated 06.12.2024, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11126 of 2024 is extracted hereinunder. "1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. However, no-one appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2.

2. This bail application has been preferred by the accused/applicant- Rahul Maurya for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.408 of 2023, under Section 376-D I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station Rajesultanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, during trial.

3. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that this Court after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties has granted bail to the applicant - Rahul Maurya vide order dated 22.08.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.2055 of 2024, however, after the bail was granted to the applicant/accused on 22.08.2024, on an application moved by the investigating officer of the case, the case was directed to be further investigated and now apart from others, the case is being investigated under Section 376-D I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act.

4. It is further submitted that the applicant was released on bail by this Court after considering all the facts, circumstances and evidence collected by the investigating officer against the applicant. It is also submitted that further investigation in the case has started on the basis of some forensic examination reports and the same are not being corroborated by any earlier version of the prosecution.

5. It is further submitted that the applicant undertakes to remain present before the investigating officer as well as before the trial court as and when his presence would be required and would cooperate in the investigation as well as in the trial.

6. Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that apart from causing death of the deceased, the deceased has also been subjected to sexual assault and having regard to the material/evidence available against the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the applicant had earlier approached this Court by filing Criminal Appeal No.2055 of 2024 for the purpose of seeking bail in Case Crime No.408 of 2023, under Sections 147, 302, 201, 364, 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Rajesultanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar and the order dated 22.08.2024, whereby the bail was granted to the applicant/appellant/accused Rahul Maurya, is being reproduced as under: "1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 is taken on record.

2. Heard counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State as also Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2.

3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 31.05.2024, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar, in Bail Application No. 648/2024, arising out of F.I.R/ Case Crime No. 408 of 2023, under Sections 147, 302, 201, 364, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Rajesultanpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar.

4. While pressing the present appeal, counsel for the appellant submits that a perusal of the prosecution story from its very inception clearly indicates that no offence has been committed by the appellant aged about 24 years and is in jail since 02.02.2024.

5. In continuation, it is stated that a conjoint reading of the statement of the informant and the statement of co-accused namely Durgesh, which is annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the instant appeal, makes the points crystal clear that the deceased and co-accused Durgesh were having affair and on account of some misunderstanding, Durgesh committed crime.

6. It is further stated that in fact, no evidence is available against the appellant and the case of the prosecution against the applicant on the basis of the bald and vague allegations levelled by the informant is Majeed Bayaan, which was taken after delay.

7. It is further stated that the appellant is engaged in journalism and to unearth the truth he moved an application dated 08.05.2024 before the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar (Annexure No. 5) for summoning C.C.T.V. footage.

8. It is further stated that in the facts of the case aforesaid, the appeal is liable to be allowed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

9. Learned A.G.A. as also counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the aforesaid but could not dispute the contention made by counsel for the appellant.

10. Having considered the submissions advanced by counsels for the parties and contents of the documents on record including the F.I.R., statement(s) of informant and his wife as also of co- accused and the application dated 08.05.2024 preferred by the appellant and also the provisions as envisaged under Section 24 to 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, this Court is of the view that the present appeal is liable to be allowed and impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

11. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 31.05.2024, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar, in Bail Application No. 648/2024, arising out of F.I.R/ Case Crime No. 408 of 2023, under Sections 147, 302, 201, 364, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Rajesultanpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar, is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed.

12. Let appellant Rahul Maurya, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

13. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

14. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order."

8. It is after enlargement of the applicant/accused in the manner aforesaid, the matter was directed to be further investigated under the orders of the special court and the order of further investigation has been passed taking into cognizance the forensic reports pertaining to the specimen taken from the dead body of the deceased, whereby it is revealed that the deceased was also subjected to rape. The investigation with regard to Section 376-D I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act is stated to be going on and the supplementary charge sheet or supplementary report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. (Section 193 of the B.N.S.S., 2023) has still not been filed.

9. Thus having regard to the fact that the applicant has already been granted bail pertaining to the offence under Sections 147, 302, 201, 364 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of the S.C./S.T. Act and the offences under Section 376-D I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act are being investigated and the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. (Section 193 of the B.N.S.S., 2023) is yet to be filed as also that co-accused Nitesh Nishad, who indicated the name of the applicant, has already been released on bail in the sections involved in this case vide order dated 13.11.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.10941 of 2024 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed."

5. 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.

6. It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, is languishing in jail since 02.02.2024, 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. In these circumstances, the revisionist is also entitled to be enlarged on bail and 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.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A., on the other hand, vehemently opposed the revision and 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.

8. Thus, having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that co-accused namely, Archana Singh @ Pinki Singh, Nitesh Nishad and Rahul Maurya have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 21.05.2024, 12.08.2024 and 06.12.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.1167 of 2024, 1743 of 2024 and Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.11126 of 2024, respectively, as also period of incarceration, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

9. The impugned judgment and order dated 02.08.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2024 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate of U.P. & another), which was preferred against the order dated 09.09.2024, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Bail Application No.1638 of 2024, (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.408 of 2023, under Sections 147, 302, 201, 364, 120-B, 376-D I.P.C. & Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Rajsultanpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar 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. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Heard counsel for the revisionist, Shri Anubhav Awasthi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

3. 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 02.08.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2024 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate of U.P. & another), which was preferred against the order dated 09.09.2024, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Bail Application No.1638 of 2024, (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.408 of 2023, under Sections 147, 302, 201, 364, 120-B, 376-D I.P.C. & Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Rajsultanpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar.

4. While pressing the present revision, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that co-accused, namely, Archana Singh @ Pinki Singh, Nitesh Nishad and Rahul Maurya have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 21.05.2024, 12.08.2024 and 06.12.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.1167 of 2024, 1743 of 2024 and Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.11126 of 2024 respectively. Relevant portion of order dated 06.12.2024, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11126 of 2024 is extracted hereinunder. "1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. However, no-one appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2.

2. This bail application has been preferred by the accused/applicant- Rahul Maurya for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.408 of 2023, under Section 376-D I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act, Police Station Rajesultanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, during trial.

3. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that this Court after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties has granted bail to the applicant - Rahul Maurya vide order dated 22.08.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.2055 of 2024, however, after the bail was granted to the applicant/accused on 22.08.2024, on an application moved by the investigating officer of the case, the case was directed to be further investigated and now apart from others, the case is being investigated under Section 376-D I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act.

4. It is further submitted that the applicant was released on bail by this Court after considering all the facts, circumstances and evidence collected by the investigating officer against the applicant. It is also submitted that further investigation in the case has started on the basis of some forensic examination reports and the same are not being corroborated by any earlier version of the prosecution.

5. It is further submitted that the applicant undertakes to remain present before the investigating officer as well as before the trial court as and when his presence would be required and would cooperate in the investigation as well as in the trial.

6. Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that apart from causing death of the deceased, the deceased has also been subjected to sexual assault and having regard to the material/evidence available against the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the applicant had earlier approached this Court by filing Criminal Appeal No.2055 of 2024 for the purpose of seeking bail in Case Crime No.408 of 2023, under Sections 147, 302, 201, 364, 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Rajesultanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar and the order dated 22.08.2024, whereby the bail was granted to the applicant/appellant/accused Rahul Maurya, is being reproduced as under: "1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 is taken on record.

2. Heard counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State as also Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2.

3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 31.05.2024, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar, in Bail Application No. 648/2024, arising out of F.I.R/ Case Crime No. 408 of 2023, under Sections 147, 302, 201, 364, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Rajesultanpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar.

4. While pressing the present appeal, counsel for the appellant submits that a perusal of the prosecution story from its very inception clearly indicates that no offence has been committed by the appellant aged about 24 years and is in jail since 02.02.2024.

5. In continuation, it is stated that a conjoint reading of the statement of the informant and the statement of co-accused namely Durgesh, which is annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the instant appeal, makes the points crystal clear that the deceased and co-accused Durgesh were having affair and on account of some misunderstanding, Durgesh committed crime.

6. It is further stated that in fact, no evidence is available against the appellant and the case of the prosecution against the applicant on the basis of the bald and vague allegations levelled by the informant is Majeed Bayaan, which was taken after delay.

7. It is further stated that the appellant is engaged in journalism and to unearth the truth he moved an application dated 08.05.2024 before the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar (Annexure No. 5) for summoning C.C.T.V. footage.

8. It is further stated that in the facts of the case aforesaid, the appeal is liable to be allowed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

9. Learned A.G.A. as also counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the aforesaid but could not dispute the contention made by counsel for the appellant.

10. Having considered the submissions advanced by counsels for the parties and contents of the documents on record including the F.I.R., statement(s) of informant and his wife as also of co- accused and the application dated 08.05.2024 preferred by the appellant and also the provisions as envisaged under Section 24 to 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, this Court is of the view that the present appeal is liable to be allowed and impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

11. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 31.05.2024, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar, in Bail Application No. 648/2024, arising out of F.I.R/ Case Crime No. 408 of 2023, under Sections 147, 302, 201, 364, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Rajesultanpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar, is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed.

12. Let appellant Rahul Maurya, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

13. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

14. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order."

8. It is after enlargement of the applicant/accused in the manner aforesaid, the matter was directed to be further investigated under the orders of the special court and the order of further investigation has been passed taking into cognizance the forensic reports pertaining to the specimen taken from the dead body of the deceased, whereby it is revealed that the deceased was also subjected to rape. The investigation with regard to Section 376-D I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act is stated to be going on and the supplementary charge sheet or supplementary report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. (Section 193 of the B.N.S.S., 2023) has still not been filed.

9. Thus having regard to the fact that the applicant has already been granted bail pertaining to the offence under Sections 147, 302, 201, 364 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of the S.C./S.T. Act and the offences under Section 376-D I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of the P.O.C.S.O. Act are being investigated and the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. (Section 193 of the B.N.S.S., 2023) is yet to be filed as also that co-accused Nitesh Nishad, who indicated the name of the applicant, has already been released on bail in the sections involved in this case vide order dated 13.11.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.10941 of 2024 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed."

5. 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.

6. It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, is languishing in jail since 02.02.2024, 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. In these circumstances, the revisionist is also entitled to be enlarged on bail and 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.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A., on the other hand, vehemently opposed the revision and 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.

8. Thus, having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that co-accused namely, Archana Singh @ Pinki Singh, Nitesh Nishad and Rahul Maurya have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 21.05.2024, 12.08.2024 and 06.12.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.1167 of 2024, 1743 of 2024 and Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.11126 of 2024, respectively, as also period of incarceration, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

9. The impugned judgment and order dated 02.08.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2024 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate of U.P. & another), which was preferred against the order dated 09.09.2024, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Bail Application No.1638 of 2024, (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.408 of 2023, under Sections 147, 302, 201, 364, 120-B, 376-D I.P.C. & Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Rajsultanpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar 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. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench