Mohd. Shahid v. State of U.P. and others) and order dated

1. Heard Sri Arif Hussain, learned counsel for revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. By means of present criminal revision filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 read with Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the revisionist has assailed the order of 31.10.2023 passed by Corut of Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, POCSO Act-I, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 224/2023 (Mohd. Shahid Vs. State of U.P. and others) and order dated 29.08.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Mohaan Road, Lucknow in Juvenile Case No. 166/2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 199/23 registered at Police Station - Indira Nagar, Lucknow and order order dated 29.08.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Mohaan Road, Lucknow in Juvenile Case No. 166/23 arising out of Case Crime No. 199/23 registered at Police Station Indira Nagar, Lucknow wherein the bail application of the revisionist has been rejected.

3. It has been stated that the revisionist is a minor aged around 16 years and is accused in Case Crime No. 199/2023 U/S 302, 376, 452 I.P.C. , 3/4 POCSO Act as well as 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. According to the prosecution the F.I.R. was lodged relating to the incident occurred on 07.06.2023 wherein it has been alleged that the revisionist has sexually assaulted the prosecutrix and subsequently hit with the hammer on her head due to which she died and subsequently she was found hanging in the room.

4. It has been stated that there was no eye witness to the said incident and subsequently in the investigation a suicide note was also found wherein the prosecutrix has stated that the applicant is responsible for blackmailing her on account of certain photographs which are in his possession and to prevent being disowned by her family she is committing the said suicide. It has been submitted that none of the material fact which links the revisionist to the said offence. It has further been submitted that the revisionist is in custody since 07.06.2023 and has spent 2 years and 11 months in custody.

5. As to the offence alleged, it is submitted that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the case with ulterior motive. In this regard, it is further stated that proper investigation was not conducted by the Police and thus the revisionist had wrongly been charged with the offence. It is further being emphasized that the revisionist does not have any criminal antecedent to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no material on record for believing that the release of revisionist is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, psychological danger, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable and liable to be set aside and revisionist is entitled to be released on bail in view of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the present revision. It has thus been submitted, merely because the revisionist is a juvenile it would not entitle him to bail without going into the gravity of the offence, the nature of the crime. It is also contended that the bail sought for has been rightly refused in view of Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is true that a juvenile offender is not entitled as of right to be enlarged on bail, irrespective of any other fact or circumstances, however, it also cannot be denied that in view of specific and special legislative intent and intervention, refusal of bail in the case of a juvenile may be made only for specific reasons and circumstances. Otherwise, a general legislative presumption does appear to exist under the scheme of the Act that the welfare of alleged juvenile offender would be better served without he being confined for long duration. Here, the revisionist has remained in juvenile home for last ten months.

10. This Court has also gone through the report of Juvenile Justice Board, who have returned adverse report against the revisionist for releasing him on bail. It is submitted that the said report is contested by learned counsel for the revisionist by submitting that it is devoid of any judicial sanctity and hence cannot be relied upon.

11. The Court has to see whether the opinion of the appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and orders are in consonance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Section 12 of the aforesaid Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile. They are :- (1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or (2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or (3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

12. Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail in Section 12 of the aforesaid Act. Though the prayer for bail of the revisionist has been opposed by learned counsel for the opposite party/State, but could not demonstrate from the record that there existed any of the grounds on which bail application of a juvenile could be rejected keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

13. Considering the above and the length of incarceration and further this Court finds that the present revision has been preferred by the elder brother of the revisionist who has stated that he shall look after the revisionist and prevent him from being involved in any such activity in the future, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board are erroneous and cannot be sustained. The impugned orders dated 31.10.2023 and 29.08.2023 are hereby set aside. The revisionist has made out a case for his release on bail.

14. Accordingly, present criminal revision is allowed.

15. Let the revisionist "Juvenile X" involved in aforesaid, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his "father Y", who is his natural guardian with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :- (i) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence, threaten the witnesses or in any manner contact the prosecutrix during course of trial; (ii) The revisionist though guardian shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law; (iii) The revisionist through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the IPC. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Ravi/ RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Arif Hussain, learned counsel for revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. By means of present criminal revision filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 read with Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the revisionist has assailed the order of 31.10.2023 passed by Corut of Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, POCSO Act-I, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 224/2023 (Mohd. Shahid Vs. State of U.P. and others) and order dated 29.08.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Mohaan Road, Lucknow in Juvenile Case No. 166/2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 199/23 registered at Police Station - Indira Nagar, Lucknow and order order dated 29.08.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Mohaan Road, Lucknow in Juvenile Case No. 166/23 arising out of Case Crime No. 199/23 registered at Police Station Indira Nagar, Lucknow wherein the bail application of the revisionist has been rejected.

3. It has been stated that the revisionist is a minor aged around 16 years and is accused in Case Crime No. 199/2023 U/S 302, 376, 452 I.P.C. , 3/4 POCSO Act as well as 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. According to the prosecution the F.I.R. was lodged relating to the incident occurred on 07.06.2023 wherein it has been alleged that the revisionist has sexually assaulted the prosecutrix and subsequently hit with the hammer on her head due to which she died and subsequently she was found hanging in the room.

4. It has been stated that there was no eye witness to the said incident and subsequently in the investigation a suicide note was also found wherein the prosecutrix has stated that the applicant is responsible for blackmailing her on account of certain photographs which are in his possession and to prevent being disowned by her family she is committing the said suicide. It has been submitted that none of the material fact which links the revisionist to the said offence. It has further been submitted that the revisionist is in custody since 07.06.2023 and has spent 2 years and 11 months in custody.

5. As to the offence alleged, it is submitted that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the case with ulterior motive. In this regard, it is further stated that proper investigation was not conducted by the Police and thus the revisionist had wrongly been charged with the offence. It is further being emphasized that the revisionist does not have any criminal antecedent to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no material on record for believing that the release of revisionist is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, psychological danger, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable and liable to be set aside and revisionist is entitled to be released on bail in view of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the present revision. It has thus been submitted, merely because the revisionist is a juvenile it would not entitle him to bail without going into the gravity of the offence, the nature of the crime. It is also contended that the bail sought for has been rightly refused in view of Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is true that a juvenile offender is not entitled as of right to be enlarged on bail, irrespective of any other fact or circumstances, however, it also cannot be denied that in view of specific and special legislative intent and intervention, refusal of bail in the case of a juvenile may be made only for specific reasons and circumstances. Otherwise, a general legislative presumption does appear to exist under the scheme of the Act that the welfare of alleged juvenile offender would be better served without he being confined for long duration. Here, the revisionist has remained in juvenile home for last ten months.

10. This Court has also gone through the report of Juvenile Justice Board, who have returned adverse report against the revisionist for releasing him on bail. It is submitted that the said report is contested by learned counsel for the revisionist by submitting that it is devoid of any judicial sanctity and hence cannot be relied upon.

11. The Court has to see whether the opinion of the appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and orders are in consonance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Section 12 of the aforesaid Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile. They are :- (1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or (2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or (3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

12. Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail in Section 12 of the aforesaid Act. Though the prayer for bail of the revisionist has been opposed by learned counsel for the opposite party/State, but could not demonstrate from the record that there existed any of the grounds on which bail application of a juvenile could be rejected keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

13. Considering the above and the length of incarceration and further this Court finds that the present revision has been preferred by the elder brother of the revisionist who has stated that he shall look after the revisionist and prevent him from being involved in any such activity in the future, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board are erroneous and cannot be sustained. The impugned orders dated 31.10.2023 and 29.08.2023 are hereby set aside. The revisionist has made out a case for his release on bail.

14. Accordingly, present criminal revision is allowed.

15. Let the revisionist "Juvenile X" involved in aforesaid, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his "father Y", who is his natural guardian with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :- (i) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence, threaten the witnesses or in any manner contact the prosecutrix during course of trial; (ii) The revisionist though guardian shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law; (iii) The revisionist through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the IPC. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Ravi/ RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench