Misc. Case No. 136 of 2024 · High Court · 2025

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order dated 12.08.2024 & 26.09.2024 have been passed de hors the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. It is next submitted that learned court below has failed to consider the report of District Probation Officer. He submits that the statement of the victim under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. suffers from improvement. While giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. two more names have been added by the victim who have not been charge-sheeted by the Investigating Officer although while narrating the prosecution story serious allegations have been made by the victim under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. however, medical does not corroborate the prosecution story. In the medical report clear finding has been recorded that no sign of forceful entry and any injury mark is seen which falsifies the prosecution version. 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 respondent No.4 have opposed the present criminal revision. It is submitted, the incident reported is true and it is wrong to say that the allegations made against the revisionist are false, and/are motivated. Also, reliance has been placed on the findings recorded in the bail rejection orders to submit that the instant revision may be dismissed. 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 and taking into consideration the impugned judgment and order and the report of the District Probation Officer 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 12.08.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No.136 of 2024 and order dated 26.09.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge POCSO Act, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.200 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 :- 2.1.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order dated 12.08.2024 & 26.09.2024 have been passed de hors the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. It is next submitted that learned court below has failed to consider the report of District Probation Officer. He submits that the statement of the victim under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. suffers from improvement. While giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. two more names have been added by the victim who have not been charge-sheeted by the Investigating Officer although while narrating the prosecution story serious allegations have been made by the victim under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. however, medical does not corroborate the prosecution story. In the medical report clear finding has been recorded that no sign of forceful entry and any injury mark is seen which falsifies the prosecution version. 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 respondent No.4 have opposed the present criminal revision. It is submitted, the incident reported is true and it is wrong to say that the allegations made against the revisionist are false, and/are motivated. Also, reliance has been placed on the findings recorded in the bail rejection orders to submit that the instant revision may be dismissed. 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 and taking into consideration the impugned judgment and order and the report of the District Probation Officer 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 12.08.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No.136 of 2024 and order dated 26.09.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge POCSO Act, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.200 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 :- 2.1.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench