Juvenile X through Father v. State of U.P. and

1. Heard, Shri Prashant Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate as well as Shri Tushar Anchal, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. None is present for the respondent nos.3 and 4, whereas notices have been served.

2. There is consensus among the learned counsel for the parties that the accused, having identical role, have been enlarged on bail by a coordinate bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No.1344 of 2024 (Juvenile X through Father Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) and Criminal Revision No.1407 of 2024 (Juvenile A in Case Crime No.221 of 2024 though his father Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others), both by means of separate orders dated 02.01.2025, and all the material before the court's below is on record and the revision may be decided on the basis of records available on the file of this revision. However, learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the report of District Probation Officer has appropriately not been considered by the court's below. Thus, the learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned orders are liable to be set-aside and the revisionist is entitled to be released on bail.

3. The order dated 02.01.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No.1407 of 2024 on 02.01.2025, on reproduction, reads as under: learned counsel for private respondent No.4. "Heard learned counsel for the revisinist, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Tushar Anchal, None appears for respondent Nos.2 & 3 although notices to the complainant is served. The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the judgment and order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No.143 of 2024 and order dated 29.10.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge/ Children Court, Special Judge POCSO Act, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.212 of 2024. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order dated 22.08.2024 & 29.10.2024 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 revision version. physical dismissed. These are:- or psychological his release would defeat 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 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 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. (i) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or (ii) expose him to moral, (iii) 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 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 released psychologically, In view of the observations made above, the present criminal revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No.143 of 2024 and order dated 29.10.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge/ Children Court, Special Judge POCSO Act, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.212 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." justice? decisions of the ends of in subsequent this court. followed danger, bail.

4. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records and aforesaid order, this Court finds that the role of the revisionist is identical to the role of the accused, who has been enlarged on bail by means of the aforesaid order dated 02.01.2025, so far as the report of the District Probation Officer is concerned, he has submitted a report that there is mixed reaction of the persons in the neighbourhood of the juvenilea bout him. The juvenile has studied in VSD, Lucknow and the crime has been committed on account of bad company. He appears to have requires consultation and institutional look after, but this finding has been recorded without any basis and merely on presumption. It has further been reported that on a query from the juvenile, he has stated that he wants to study further and prepare for the Forces but the learned courts below without considering the aforesaid report of the District Probation Officer has rejected the application for bail.

5. The Juvenile Justice Board has recorded a finding that in case the juvenile is released on bail, he will be again in the same circumstances, where he would have adverse effect on his moral, physical and mental status. The appellate court also, without considering the aforesaid report of the District Probation Officer appropriately, recorded a finding that since there is lack of family control, therefore, if he is released without psychological training, there are chances of his coming into contact with known accused without any basis. The learned revisional court, if was of the aforesaid view, has failed to direct for the psychological training of the juvenile.

6. Nothing has also been shown or placed on record to show that the release of revisionist will bring him into association with any person, criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. The reasons recorded by the Board and appellate court for denying bail are not sufficient.

7. In view of above and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the findings recorded by the court's below are without considering the records appropriately. Thus, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders are liable to be set-aside and the case for bail is made out.

8. The impugned order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Children Court, Special Judge (POCSO Act), District Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.213 of 2024 and order dated 22.08.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow, in Criminal Case No.144 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.221 of 2024, under Section 377, 506 IPC and under Section 5G/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Thakurganj, District- Lucknow are hereby set aside and the revision is allowed.

9. Let the revisionist convicted and sentenced in Complaint Case No.18/2022,arising out of Case Crime No.221 of 2024, under Section 377, 506 IPC and under Section 5G/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Thakurganj, District- Lucknow be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following condition:- (i) The revisionist shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail and parent of the revisionist shall take care of his education and betterment and will keep constant check on his activities. (ii) He shall assist the trial court in expeditious disposal of trial.

10. In case of breach of aforesaid conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11 Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case. ...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Haseen U. HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard, Shri Prashant Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate as well as Shri Tushar Anchal, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. None is present for the respondent nos.3 and 4, whereas notices have been served.

2. There is consensus among the learned counsel for the parties that the accused, having identical role, have been enlarged on bail by a coordinate bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No.1344 of 2024 (Juvenile X through Father Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) and Criminal Revision No.1407 of 2024 (Juvenile A in Case Crime No.221 of 2024 though his father Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others), both by means of separate orders dated 02.01.2025, and all the material before the court's below is on record and the revision may be decided on the basis of records available on the file of this revision. However, learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the report of District Probation Officer has appropriately not been considered by the court's below. Thus, the learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned orders are liable to be set-aside and the revisionist is entitled to be released on bail.

3. The order dated 02.01.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No.1407 of 2024 on 02.01.2025, on reproduction, reads as under: learned counsel for private respondent No.4. "Heard learned counsel for the revisinist, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Tushar Anchal, None appears for respondent Nos.2 & 3 although notices to the complainant is served. The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the judgment and order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No.143 of 2024 and order dated 29.10.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge/ Children Court, Special Judge POCSO Act, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.212 of 2024. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order dated 22.08.2024 & 29.10.2024 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 revision version. physical dismissed. These are:- or psychological his release would defeat 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 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 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. (i) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or (ii) expose him to moral, (iii) 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 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 released psychologically, In view of the observations made above, the present criminal revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No.143 of 2024 and order dated 29.10.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge/ Children Court, Special Judge POCSO Act, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.212 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." justice? decisions of the ends of in subsequent this court. followed danger, bail.

4. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records and aforesaid order, this Court finds that the role of the revisionist is identical to the role of the accused, who has been enlarged on bail by means of the aforesaid order dated 02.01.2025, so far as the report of the District Probation Officer is concerned, he has submitted a report that there is mixed reaction of the persons in the neighbourhood of the juvenilea bout him. The juvenile has studied in VSD, Lucknow and the crime has been committed on account of bad company. He appears to have requires consultation and institutional look after, but this finding has been recorded without any basis and merely on presumption. It has further been reported that on a query from the juvenile, he has stated that he wants to study further and prepare for the Forces but the learned courts below without considering the aforesaid report of the District Probation Officer has rejected the application for bail.

5. The Juvenile Justice Board has recorded a finding that in case the juvenile is released on bail, he will be again in the same circumstances, where he would have adverse effect on his moral, physical and mental status. The appellate court also, without considering the aforesaid report of the District Probation Officer appropriately, recorded a finding that since there is lack of family control, therefore, if he is released without psychological training, there are chances of his coming into contact with known accused without any basis. The learned revisional court, if was of the aforesaid view, has failed to direct for the psychological training of the juvenile.

6. Nothing has also been shown or placed on record to show that the release of revisionist will bring him into association with any person, criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. The reasons recorded by the Board and appellate court for denying bail are not sufficient.

7. In view of above and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the findings recorded by the court's below are without considering the records appropriately. Thus, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders are liable to be set-aside and the case for bail is made out.

8. The impugned order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Children Court, Special Judge (POCSO Act), District Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.213 of 2024 and order dated 22.08.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow, in Criminal Case No.144 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.221 of 2024, under Section 377, 506 IPC and under Section 5G/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Thakurganj, District- Lucknow are hereby set aside and the revision is allowed.

9. Let the revisionist convicted and sentenced in Complaint Case No.18/2022,arising out of Case Crime No.221 of 2024, under Section 377, 506 IPC and under Section 5G/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Thakurganj, District- Lucknow be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following condition:- (i) The revisionist shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail and parent of the revisionist shall take care of his education and betterment and will keep constant check on his activities. (ii) He shall assist the trial court in expeditious disposal of trial.

10. In case of breach of aforesaid conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11 Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case. ...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Haseen U. HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench