# Aman Kashyap Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 224
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 474 of 2020
- **Bench:** Mrs. Saroj Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aman-kashyap-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47078
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 - Section 12 (1)-
Revisionist
declared
juvenile-Bail
rejectedAppeal rejected-Report of District probation
officer-no criminal history-studying in class 11 at
the time of incident-no possibility of association
of the juvenile with known or unknown
criminals-case donot falls under the exceptions
of Section 12 (1) of the Act, 2015-Bail granted.

Revision allowed. (E-7)

## Text

224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
preferred has written in his affidavit that the
family members of the revisionist are educated,
well settled and are living peaceful life together.
After release of the revisionist, he shall be living
in custody of his parents and will keep distance
from any kind of moral activities /personalities.

19. In the light of above, discussion the
case of the revisionist/juvenile does not fall in
any of the three exceptions provided under the
proviso to section 12(1) of the Act of 2015, so
as to deprive the juvenile of the liberty of bail.
Hence impugned order passed by Principal
Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board dated
21.11.2019 as well as the judgment and order
dated 18.12.2019 of the appellate court passed
in appeal deserves to be set-aside.

20. Revision is allowed.

21. The order passed by Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board dated
21.11.2019 and judgment dated 18.12.2019
passed by Appellate Court are hereby set-aside.

22. Let the revisionist/juvenile (Ram
Kishan Yadav) be released on bail in Case
Crime No. 208 of 2019, under Sections 302,
201 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST
Act, Police Station Kudwar, District Sultanpur
and be given in custody of his father on his
furnishing a personal bond and two solvent
sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate of
Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur subject to
following conditions :-

(i) That the father of the juvenile
shall furnish an undertaking that upon release
on bail, the juvenile will not be permitted to
come into contact or association with any
known criminal or be exposed to any moral,
physical or psychological danger and he will
ensure that the juvenile do not repeat the
offence.

(ii) The father will further furnish an
undertaking to the effect that he will encourage
the juvenile to pursue his studies.

(iii) The revisionist Ram Kishan
Yadav and his fatehr Rajendra Prasad Yadav
will report to the District Probation Officer on
the first Monday of every month with effect
from the first Monday of the month next after
release from custody, and if during any calendar
month, the first Monday falls on a holiday then
on the following working day.

(iv) The District Probation Officer
will keep strict vigil on the activities of the
revisionist and regularly draw up his social
investigation report that would be submitted to
the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur on such
periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board
determines.

(v) The party shall file a computer
generated copy of such order downloaded from
the official website of High Court Allahabad.

(vi) The computer generated copy of
such order shall be self attested by the counsel
of the party concerned.

(vii)
The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official
shall
verify
the
authenticity of the computerized copy of the
order from the official website of High Court
Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such
verification in writing.
----------
(2021)07ILR A224
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J.

Criminal Revision No. 474 of 2020

Aman Kashyap ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
7 All. Aman Kashyap Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
225
Vivek Pandey, Ashish Raman Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 - Section 12 (1)-
Revisionist
declared
juvenile-Bail
rejectedAppeal rejected-Report of District probation
officer-no criminal history-studying in class 11 at
the time of incident-no possibility of association
of the juvenile with known or unknown
criminals-case donot falls under the exceptions
of Section 12 (1) of the Act, 2015-Bail granted.

Revision allowed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.)

1. This criminal revision has been
preferred by the juvenile Aman Kashyap
through his mother, under Section 102 of
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015 (in short 'Act of
2015') against order dated 28.8.2020
passed by Additional District and Sessions
Judge/Special Judge(POCSO Act), Gonda
in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2021 (Aman
Kashyap Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated
2.7.2020 passed by Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda in Case
No.18/2020 (State of U.P. Vs. Aman
Kashyap in Case Crime No.10/2020, under
Sections 363, 366, 506, 376 (3) Indian
Penal Code ( in short 'I.P.C.') and Section
3/4 of The Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ( in short
'POCSO Act'), Police Station Kotwali
Nagar, District Gonda.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of
this criminal revision are as under :-

3. An F.I.R. bearing Case Crime
No.10/2020 was registered against the
revisionist at police Station Kotwali Nagar,
District Gonda under Sections 363, 366,
506, 376 (3) I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of
POCSO Act.

In the F.I.R., allegations against
the revisionist are that he enticed away the
daughter of the complainant on 8.12.2019
at about 9.00 p.m. in the night. He left the
victim back on 29.12.2019 and threatened
to kill her if she tells anybody about the
incident. In her statement recorded under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim
has stated that Aman (revisionist) took her
away forcibly and committed rape upon
her.

The revisionist was declared
juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board per
order
dated
8.6.2020.
He
moved
application to release him on bail which
was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board
per order dated 2.7.2020.

4. Being aggrieved by the order of the
Juvenile Justice Board, the applicant
preferred appeal under Section 101 of the
Act of 2015 which was decided by the
Additional
District
and
Sessions
Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Gonda
per order dated 28.8.2020 wherein appeal
of the applicant juvenile was dismissed.

5. Being aggrieved by the order
passed in appeal, this revision has been
preferred.

6. The revisionist juvenile has
assailed the impugned order mainly on the
ground that the court below has overlooked
the report of the District Probation Officer
wherein nothing adverse has been noted
against the revisionist. No reason has been
assigned by the appellate court to arrive at
the conclusion that if the applicant will be
226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
released on bail, he would associate with
criminals and that will cause moral,
physical or psychological danger to the
applicant/revisionist. There is also no
reason to conclude that if the revisionist is
released on bail, that will defeat the ends of
justice.

7. It has also been stated that the bail
application of the juvenile can be rejected only
if there exists either of the conditions provided
in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act of
2015. It has further been stated that the
impugned orders passed by the appellate court
as well as Juvenile Justice Board are without
application of mind and illegal.

8. Notice was served upon respondent
no.2 the informant but none turned up.

9. Counter affidavit was filed by
respondent no.1 State of U.P. wherein it has
been stated that if the applicant is released on
bail, then there is possibility that law and order
situation may worsen and the applicant may
abscond.

10. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist and learned A.G.A.

11.

Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist/juvenile
submitted
that
the
revisionist is a minor. The victim and the
applicant are students in the same school. Both
are minor. The victim herself accompanied the
applicant juvenile. Furthermore, the settled legal
position is that the bail application of the
juvenile in conflict with law can be rejected
only on the ground mentioned in the proviso of
Section 12 of the Act of 2015 and not
otherwise.

He further submitted that there is
no material on record to infer that the
applicant juvenile if released on bail, shall
come in association of known criminals or
his release will defeat the ends of justice.
The applicant is in judicial custody since
10.1.2020. Therefore, the applicant may be
released on bail and the order dated
28.8.2020 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act
as also order 2.7.2020 passed by Juvenile
Justice Board be set aside.

12. Learned A.G.A. opposed the
revision and submitted that the applicant
juvenile enticed away the minor daughter
of the informant and committed rape upon
her. This has been proved by the statement
of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. So
the application should be rejected.

13. Considered the rival submissions
and perused the record.

14. Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015,
in this regard lays down as under :-

"12. (1) 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,
7 All. Aman Kashyap Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
227
and the Board shall record the reasons for
denying the bail and circumstances that
led to such a decision."

Legal position is that, for a
juvenile in conflict with law bail is the
Rule.

15. It is settled law that a bail
application of a juvenile can be rejected only
-

(i). If there appears reasonable
ground for believing that the release is likely
to bring the juvenile into association with any
known criminal ; or,

(ii). exposed the juvenile to moral,
physical or psychological danger ; or,

(iii). release of the juvenile would
defeat the ends of justice.

16. In the present matter, the Juvenile
Justice Board came to the conclusion that if
the Juvenile applicant was released on bail,
then it will cause moral, physical and
psychological danger to him and it will defeat
the ends of justice and the juvenile would
commit offence again in the association with
known or unknown criminals.

17. The appellate court concluded that
there exists reasonable ground to believe that
if the juvenile is released on bail, he will be
exposed to moral, physical or psychological
danger and confirmed the order of the
Juvenile Justice Board and rejected the
appeal of the juvenile.

18. In the report of the District
Probation Officer, which is Annexure -5 to
the affidavit filed in this revision, it has been
stated that the juvenile is in State Juvenile
Home since 10.1.2020. He has no criminal
history. He was studying in Class-11 at the
time of the incident. In the report, there is
no mention that there is any possibility of the
association of the juvenile with known or
unknown criminals.

Perusal of this report shows that
there is nothing in this report to lead to the
conclusion that the case of the revisionist falls
within any of the three exceptions mentioned
in the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

Juvenile
Justice
Board
and
appellate court have not given reasons on
what basis they came to the conclusion
mentioned in the impugned order/ judgment.

19. Considering the above facts and
circumstances and the settled position of law,
the order of Juvenile Justice Board and the
judgment of the appellate court are not
sustainable. Therefore, it appears just to set
aside the orders passed by the Juvenile
Justice Act and the judgement passed in
appeal.

20. The revision is allowed. Impugned
order dated order dated 28.8.2020 passed by
Additional
District
and
Sessions
Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Gonda in
Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2021 (Aman
Kashyap Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated
2.7.2020 passed by Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda in Case
No.18/2020 (State of U.P. Vs. Aman
Kashyap in Case Crime No.10/2020, under
Sections 363, 366, 506, 376 (3) I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station
Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda, are hereby set
aside.

21. The bail application moved on
behalf of the revisionist by his mother
Madhuri is allowed.
228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

The juvenile(Aman Kashyap)
shall be released on bail in Case Crime
No.10/2020(supra) and be given in custody
of his mother, on her furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Principal
Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board,
Gonda subject to following conditions :-

i). That the mother of the juvenile
shall furnish an undertaking that upon
release on bail, the juvenile will not be
permitted
to
come
into
contact
or
association with any known criminal or be
exposed
to
any
moral,
physical
or
psychological danger and further that the
mother will ensure that the juvenile do not
repeat the offence.

(ii). The mother will further
furnish an undertaking to the effect that she
will encourage the juvenile to pursue his
studies.

(iii).
The
revisionist
Aman
Kashyap and his mother Madhuri will
report to the District Probation Officer on
the first Monday of every month with effect
from the first Monday of the month next
after release from custody, and if during
any calendar month, the first Monday falls
on a holiday then on the following working
day.

(iv).
The
District
Probation
Officer will keep strict vigil on the
activities of the revisionist and regularly
draw up his social investigation report that
would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice
Board, Gonda on such periodical basis as
the Juvenile Justice Board determines.
----------
(2021)07ILR A228
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J.
Criminal Revision No. 861 of 2019

Vipin Mali (Minor) ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Dhirendra
Kumar
Mishra,
Anil
Kumar
Tiwari, Nitesh Yadav, Ramakar Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate, Gyanendra Mishra

(A) Criminal Law - The Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 - Section 18(1)(g) - orders regarding
child found to be in conflict with law ,
Section 12 - Bail to a person who is
apparently a child alleged to be in conflict
with law, Section 102 - Revision , Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366,
504, 506 - The Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section
7/8 - rejection of bail application of a
juvenile - ground - (i) If there appears
reasonable ground for believing that the
release is likely to bring the juvenile into
association with any known criminal (ii)
expose the juvenile to moral, physical or
psychological danger, or (iii) release of
the juvenile would defeat the ends of
justice - for a juvenile in conflict with law
bail is the Rule - bail application of a
juvenile can be rejected exceptionally.
(Para - 11,14)

F.I.R. registered against revisionist/juvenile and
four
other
co-accused
persons
-
written
complaint - daughter of the complainant aged
about
17
years
-
taken
away
by
revisionist/juvenile - revisionist claimed juvenility
- declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board
- revisionist/juvenile moved bail application
before the Juvenile Justice Board - rejected -
appeal preferred - dismissed by the Appellate
Court - revisionist/juvenile preferred the present
revision. (para - 2,3)

HELD:- There is nothing against the juvenile in
the report, so as to bring his case under the
exceptions provided in proviso to Section 12(1)
of the Act of 2015. The order passed by