X- Juvenile v. State of U.P and Another

Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1133 of 2024 Revisionist :- X-Juvenile Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Harish Chandra,Umesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1-The present criminal revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.01.2024 passed by learned Juvenile Court No. 3, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 190 of 2023 and against order dated 07.11.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut in Bail Application No. 151 of 2023 (State vs. Juvenile X through Mother Smt. Rajwati) in Case Crime No. 485 of 2023, under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer of bail of accused-revisionist. 2-Despite service of notice upon the complainant / informant, no one has put in appearance on his behalf, hence, this Court proceeds to hear this matter on merit. 3-Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. representing the State of U.P. and perused the record. 4-As per the prosecution case in brief, on

03.07.2023, an F.I.R. was lodged by first informant/opposite party-2 Ravindra, which was registered at Case Crime No. 485 of 2023, under section 302 IPC, Police Station-Sardhana, District Meerut. In the aforesaid F.I.R. an unknown person has been arraigned as accused. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that marriage of Ram Bari was solemnized in the year 2015 with one Arun. However, on account of marital discord, the parties went in for mutual separation. The F.I.R. however, records that at around 7:00 am, the sister of the first informant had gone to forest to collect the food for cattle and at around 8:30 pm, one Anil disclosed that dead body of sister of first informant is lying in the sugar cane field of one Charan Singh. 5-Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated

03.07.2023 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 06.10.2023 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 14 years 09 months and 16 days on the date of alleged incident. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 04.07.2023. 6-It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is not named in the F.I.R. During investigation, complicity of Adesh, Aryan, Sandeep, Deepak (revisionist) and Rohit came into light in the statement of Ramveer and thereafter, co-accused Adesh was apprehended and he, in his confessional statement, also disclosed the complicity of above named accused persons. Much emphasis has been given by contending that as per the prosecution case, deceased was pregnant from the relation of co-accused Adesh, who has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

06.02.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 55238 of 2023. Co-accused Sandeep, under similar accusation, has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.07.2024 in Criminal Revision No. 1046 of 2024. The case of present revisionist stands on similar footing to that of co-accused Sandeep, hence, revisionist is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. 7-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, aforesaid 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 Child) Act, 2015. 8-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 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015. 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 circumstance, 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 circumstance. 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 since 04.07.2023 against the maximum sentence of three years in case of conviction. 10-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 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:-

(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. 11-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 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. 12-Considering the above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are erroneous and cannot be sustained. The aforesaid impugned orders dated 23.01.2024 and 07.11.2023 are hereby set aside. 13-Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed. 14-Let the revisionist X-Juvenile, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his mother namely Smt. Rajwati 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 or threaten the witnesses;

(ii) The revisionist through 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. Order Date :- 26.5.2025/Saurabh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad