Juvenile X Thru. His Father v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

Instant Criminal Revision has been preferred under section – 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act against the order dated 28.8.2025 passed by the Juvenile Court/ Special Judge POCSO Act (Exclusive) First Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No.32/2025 as well as the order dated 28.5.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board Raebareli, rejecting the bail application of the juvenile arising out from case crime no.06/2025 under sections 103 (1), 238, 140 (1), 308 (2), 3 (5) BNS, police station – Kotwali Nagar, District Raebareli. Counter affidavit is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Notice was issued to respondent no.2 which has been personally served upon him as per office report. None appeared on his behalf in present revision to oppose the prayer for bail made on behalf of revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that as per prosecution version, informant – Akhtar, son of Jakir Hussain lodged FIR on 06.01.2025 on police station Kotwali Nagar, Raebareli with the averment that his brother in law Manna, son of Jaheer runs a scrap shop near Indira Nagar Police outpost, Lucknow. On 05.01.2025, Manna, a scrap shop dealer was present on his shop who was taken away by his friend Awadhesh Yadav at around 05:00 PM. The wife of Manna received a phone call from the number of her husband saying by the caller that she has to send Rs.50,000/- near PGI Gate through to Adil, who is resident of Kaharon Ka Adda. When the cash was sent the abductee was not found but two unknown persons reached transferred Rs.23,000/- in the account of Awadhesh Yadav in the same night. FIR was lodged under Section 140 (1) and Section 308 (2) BNS. the money. The abductee has During the course of investigation four persons namely Awadhesh Yadav, 2 CRLR No. 1007 of 2025 Sahjade alias Bachcha, Jitendra Rawat and Mohd Shoeb were arrested by the police on secret information from a cemetery near Lalganj road and from the personal search Rs.47,500/- cash and Wagon R car was also recovered from his possession. They confessed to have abducted Manna scrap dealer, demanded ransom to release him from his wife and from the victim and subsequently killed him. The dead body was recovered from the thick bushes near BKT which was thrown there to conceal the same which was identified by the family members. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that in the postmortem examination report the solitary injury which was contusion of 7 cm x 4 cm present on back side of head, was found. Cause of death has been shown as 'ante mortem head injury'. The viscera was preserved for further examination. The applicant was arrested by police along with co-accused on the basis of confessional statement regarding their involvement in the case in the murder of Manna. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no eyewitness of the alleged occurrence. The applicant was arrested merely on the basis of his own confessional statement as well as confessional statement of co-accused person before the police which is not a valid piece of evidence. The ransom was allegedly received by co-accused Awadhesh Yadav and Shahzade who have already been released on bail vide order dated 15.9.2025 passed by this Court in bail application no.6431 of 2025 and vide order dated 03.9.2025, passed by this Court in Bail Application No.7312 of 2025. Co-accused Jitendra Rawat has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 19.5.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.4306 of 2025. Therefore, the revisionist who is a juvenile also deserves to be released on bail on the ground of parity. He also submitted that there is nothing adverse against the revisionist in social investigation report filed by the District Probation officer on 21.4.2025. He has stated in his report that during inquiry the neighbours told him that juvenile was playing near home. Three persons came to him and got him sit in their car. Subsequently, the persons sitting in the car had dropped a person who was killed near shrubs by pushing him from the car. The police came and took all the four persons along with them. It has been next submitted that the revisionist has no prior criminal history. In the report of District Probation Officer the reason of the crime may be negligence of parents. The juvenile has received education up to Class VIII in New Public School, Nehru Nagar. He observes 'Namaj'. He was 15 years 4 months and 9 days of age at the time of inquiry. Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail in the present revision citing the gravity of the offence which is a case of kidnapping, demand of ransom and subsequent murder of the deceased, however, he does not dispute the fact that main accused persons who are major are already enlarged on bail by orders of this Court passed in their respective bail applications. From perusal of the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below it 3 CRLR No. 1007 of 2025 appears that the bail application of the juvenile has been dismissed mainly on the ground of the gravity of the offence and an apprehension that in case of release on bail, he is likely to come into association with known criminals as his companions are co-accused of an henious offence like this and he may be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides that :- (i) When any person , who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person : Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision. (2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub section (1) by the officer – in -charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the enquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order. (4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail. In present case no specific role has been assigned to the revisionist in the alleged offence. He is said to have accompanied co accused in disposal of dead body. as per social investigation report of District probation Officer which is also based on hearsay. Main accused who are major are already enlarged on bail by orders of this Court. It is settled law that bail to a juvenile is rule and refusal of bail to the juvenile/ child is an exception. By refusing bail to a juvenile/ child it is not sufficient to enumerate the grounds of rejection of bail as stated in Section 12 of the Act in mechanical manner but it is incumbent on the Board or Court to mention the material on the basis of which the Board or Court has come to this conclusion that grant of bail to juvenile would defeat the ends of justice or he may be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger or he may be associated with some known criminals. 4 CRLR No. 1007 of 2025 Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned court below has committed legal error while denying the bail to the juvenile/ child. Impugned orders are not sustainable and deserve to be set aside. Revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 28.8.2025 passed by the Juvenile Court/ Special Judge POCSO Act (Exclusive) First Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No.32/2025 as well as the order dated 28.5.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board Raebareli are set aside. Revisionist is released on bail on undertaking and personal bond furnished by his guradian and two sureties each in like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice board with condition that the guardian (father) of the juvenile and sureties shall ensure presence of the child on dates fixed for hearing before the trial court. The guardian of the child will ensure that the revisionist child does not come into contact with co-accused persons and he will ensure that he will not indulge in any anti social or criminal activities during the pendency of trial before the Juvenile Justice Board. In case of breach of any of the above conditions the fact will be brought to the notice of the Juvenile Justice Board which may proceed to cancel the bail of juvenile. November 28, 2025 (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Instant Criminal Revision has been preferred under section – 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act against the order dated 28.8.2025 passed by the Juvenile Court/ Special Judge POCSO Act (Exclusive) First Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No.32/2025 as well as the order dated 28.5.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board Raebareli, rejecting the bail application of the juvenile arising out from case crime no.06/2025 under sections 103 (1), 238, 140 (1), 308 (2), 3 (5) BNS, police station – Kotwali Nagar, District Raebareli. Counter affidavit is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Notice was issued to respondent no.2 which has been personally served upon him as per office report. None appeared on his behalf in present revision to oppose the prayer for bail made on behalf of revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that as per prosecution version, informant – Akhtar, son of Jakir Hussain lodged FIR on 06.01.2025 on police station Kotwali Nagar, Raebareli with the averment that his brother in law Manna, son of Jaheer runs a scrap shop near Indira Nagar Police outpost, Lucknow. On 05.01.2025, Manna, a scrap shop dealer was present on his shop who was taken away by his friend Awadhesh Yadav at around 05:00 PM. The wife of Manna received a phone call from the number of her husband saying by the caller that she has to send Rs.50,000/- near PGI Gate through to Adil, who is resident of Kaharon Ka Adda. When the cash was sent the abductee was not found but two unknown persons reached transferred Rs.23,000/- in the account of Awadhesh Yadav in the same night. FIR was lodged under Section 140 (1) and Section 308 (2) BNS. the money. The abductee has During the course of investigation four persons namely Awadhesh Yadav, 2 CRLR No. 1007 of 2025 Sahjade alias Bachcha, Jitendra Rawat and Mohd Shoeb were arrested by the police on secret information from a cemetery near Lalganj road and from the personal search Rs.47,500/- cash and Wagon R car was also recovered from his possession. They confessed to have abducted Manna scrap dealer, demanded ransom to release him from his wife and from the victim and subsequently killed him. The dead body was recovered from the thick bushes near BKT which was thrown there to conceal the same which was identified by the family members. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that in the postmortem examination report the solitary injury which was contusion of 7 cm x 4 cm present on back side of head, was found. Cause of death has been shown as 'ante mortem head injury'. The viscera was preserved for further examination. The applicant was arrested by police along with co-accused on the basis of confessional statement regarding their involvement in the case in the murder of Manna. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no eyewitness of the alleged occurrence. The applicant was arrested merely on the basis of his own confessional statement as well as confessional statement of co-accused person before the police which is not a valid piece of evidence. The ransom was allegedly received by co-accused Awadhesh Yadav and Shahzade who have already been released on bail vide order dated 15.9.2025 passed by this Court in bail application no.6431 of 2025 and vide order dated 03.9.2025, passed by this Court in Bail Application No.7312 of 2025. Co-accused Jitendra Rawat has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 19.5.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.4306 of 2025. Therefore, the revisionist who is a juvenile also deserves to be released on bail on the ground of parity. He also submitted that there is nothing adverse against the revisionist in social investigation report filed by the District Probation officer on 21.4.2025. He has stated in his report that during inquiry the neighbours told him that juvenile was playing near home. Three persons came to him and got him sit in their car. Subsequently, the persons sitting in the car had dropped a person who was killed near shrubs by pushing him from the car. The police came and took all the four persons along with them. It has been next submitted that the revisionist has no prior criminal history. In the report of District Probation Officer the reason of the crime may be negligence of parents. The juvenile has received education up to Class VIII in New Public School, Nehru Nagar. He observes 'Namaj'. He was 15 years 4 months and 9 days of age at the time of inquiry. Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail in the present revision citing the gravity of the offence which is a case of kidnapping, demand of ransom and subsequent murder of the deceased, however, he does not dispute the fact that main accused persons who are major are already enlarged on bail by orders of this Court passed in their respective bail applications. From perusal of the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below it 3 CRLR No. 1007 of 2025 appears that the bail application of the juvenile has been dismissed mainly on the ground of the gravity of the offence and an apprehension that in case of release on bail, he is likely to come into association with known criminals as his companions are co-accused of an henious offence like this and he may be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides that :- (i) When any person , who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person : Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision. (2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub section (1) by the officer – in -charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the enquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order. (4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail. In present case no specific role has been assigned to the revisionist in the alleged offence. He is said to have accompanied co accused in disposal of dead body. as per social investigation report of District probation Officer which is also based on hearsay. Main accused who are major are already enlarged on bail by orders of this Court. It is settled law that bail to a juvenile is rule and refusal of bail to the juvenile/ child is an exception. By refusing bail to a juvenile/ child it is not sufficient to enumerate the grounds of rejection of bail as stated in Section 12 of the Act in mechanical manner but it is incumbent on the Board or Court to mention the material on the basis of which the Board or Court has come to this conclusion that grant of bail to juvenile would defeat the ends of justice or he may be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger or he may be associated with some known criminals. 4 CRLR No. 1007 of 2025 Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned court below has committed legal error while denying the bail to the juvenile/ child. Impugned orders are not sustainable and deserve to be set aside. Revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 28.8.2025 passed by the Juvenile Court/ Special Judge POCSO Act (Exclusive) First Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No.32/2025 as well as the order dated 28.5.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board Raebareli are set aside. Revisionist is released on bail on undertaking and personal bond furnished by his guradian and two sureties each in like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice board with condition that the guardian (father) of the juvenile and sureties shall ensure presence of the child on dates fixed for hearing before the trial court. The guardian of the child will ensure that the revisionist child does not come into contact with co-accused persons and he will ensure that he will not indulge in any anti social or criminal activities during the pendency of trial before the Juvenile Justice Board. In case of breach of any of the above conditions the fact will be brought to the notice of the Juvenile Justice Board which may proceed to cancel the bail of juvenile. November 28, 2025 (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench