# Arjun @ Golu v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 770
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12043 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arjun-golu-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53444
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860Sections
363,
366,
376(3)-Criminal
Procedure Code,1973-Section 439 -The
Protection
of
Children
from
Sexual
Offences Act-2012 - Sections 5J(2), 5-L &
6 -Juvenile Justice( Care and Protection of
children)
Act,2015-Section
3(iv)-The
applicant had eloped with a 13 year old
girl-The victim stated in her statements
u/s 161,164 and during her medical
examination that she had gone with the
applicant voluntarily, had married him,
and had consensual physical relations
resulting in pregnancy-No signs of force or
injury were found-The applicant had
sought declaration of juvenility supported
by school records but the application was
not decided by the trial court, and the
applicant continued to remain in regular
jail-The court expressed serious concern
over this lapse, failure of the trial court to
recognize and act on the applicant's
juvenile status-The court granted bail,
directed the trial court to expeditiously
decide the juvenile status application-
(Para 1 to 25)
The application is allowed. (E-6)

## Text

770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
informant, through Registrar Compliance
of this Court.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 770
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12043 of
2024

Arjun @ Golu ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Gyan Singh, Awadhesh Kumar Pal

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Durgesh Mishra, Saumya Singh

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860Sections
363,
366,
376(3)-Criminal
Procedure Code,1973-Section 439 -The
Protection
of
Children
from
Sexual
Offences Act-2012 - Sections 5J(2), 5-L &
6 -Juvenile Justice( Care and Protection of
children)
Act,2015-Section
3(iv)-The
applicant had eloped with a 13 year old
girl-The victim stated in her statements
u/s 161,164 and during her medical
examination that she had gone with the
applicant voluntarily, had married him,
and had consensual physical relations
resulting in pregnancy-No signs of force or
injury were found-The applicant had
sought declaration of juvenility supported
by school records but the application was
not decided by the trial court, and the
applicant continued to remain in regular
jail-The court expressed serious concern
over this lapse, failure of the trial court to
recognize and act on the applicant's
juvenile status-The court granted bail,
directed the trial court to expeditiously
decide the juvenile status application-
(Para 1 to 25)
The application is allowed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Sri Durgesh Mishra, the learned
counsel for the informant has sent a slip
seeking adjournment of the case on the
ground of his illness.

2. The cause list shows the name of
Ms. Saumya Singh as learned counsel for
the informant and neither she is present to
assist the Court nor any request has been
made on her behalf for adjournment of the
case. Complainant or victim of the case
have a right to oppose the bail application
but they do not have a right to stall hearing
of the bail application more particularly,
when the State counsel is present to oppose
the bail application and more particularly
when the applicant is a juvenile, therefore,
request for adjournment of the bail
application is turned down.

3. Heard Dr. Gyan Singh, the learned
counsel for the applicant, Sri Satyendra
Srivastava, the learned AGA for the State
and perused the records.

4. The instant application has been filed
seeking release of the applicant on bail in
Case Crime No. 52 of2024, under Sections
363, 366, 376(3) of IPC and 5J(2), 5-L, 6 of
the POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station
Aasupur Deosara, District Pratapgarh.

5. The aforesaid case has been
registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on
06.03.2024 against the applicant, his Phupha
and Bua, stating that the applicant had enticed
away the informant's daughter aged 13 years
in the night of 04/05 March, 2024.

6. In the statement of the victim
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she
5 All. Arjun @ Golu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
771
stated that she loves the applicant and
wants to marry him. There are relations like
husband and wife between them and she
became pregnant.

7.

During
the
medico
legal
examination, the victim stated before the
doctor that she has married the applicant.
The medico legal examination report
reveals no mark of injury or sign of use of
force. Urine pregnancy test was found to be
positive and the ultrasonography showed a
single gravid uterus.

8. In the statement of the victim
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she
stated that she had gone away from her
home on her own, she went to Mumbai
where she called the applicant, she married
him in a temple and stayed with him. She
further stated that she has made physical
relations with mutual consent and she was
having two months' pregnancy.

9. In the affidavit filed in support of
the bail application, it has been stated that
the applicant is aged 16 years' boy having
no criminal history and he has been falsely
implicated in the present case. It has further
been stated that an application was filed on
08.04.2024 before the trial court for
declaring the applicant a juvenile, stating
that as per educational documents, date of
birth of the applicant is 18.04.2008 and he
is a juvenile but this application has not
been decided till date.

10. Having considered the aforesaid
facts and circumstances of the case and
keeping in view the consistent statements
of the victim wherein she has not levelled
any
allegation
against
the
applicant,
coupled with the fact that the applicant is a
young boy aged 16 years, I am of the view
that the applicant is entitled to be released
on bail in the aforesaid crime on furnishing
a single surety by his father.

11. Accordingly, this bail application
stands allowed.

12. Let the applicant-Arjun @ Golu
be released on bail in the aforementioned
case on furnishing a personal bond his
father Sri. Vimlesh anias Babloo that he
will ensure proper care of the applicant and
will ensure that the applicant does not
evade the process of law in the aforesaid
case in which he is involved.

13. Before parting with the case, this
Court is constrained to observe that in the
description of the applicant, his age is
stated to be 16 years, as per which he is a
child as per the definition of the term
contained in the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (which
will hereinafter be referred to as 'the
Juvenile Justice Act'). However, the
learned Counsel for the applicant did not
point out this fact to the Court. This bail
application was filed on 16.11.2024 and on
19.11.2024, the following order was passed
in the case: -

"1. Heard Sri Gyan Singh,
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Anand Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the
State.

2. Learned AGA has informed
that the notice has already been served on
opposite party no. 2 on 11.11.2024,
however, none has appeared.

3. Let the counter affidavit /
objection be filed in two weeks.

4. List in the week commencing
9.12.2024 within top ten cases."

14. Apparently the learned Counsel
for the applicant did not submit that the
772 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applicant claims to be a juvenile and the
Court called for a counter affidavit. The
State has filed a counter affidavit on
30.11.2024 and even in the counter
affidavit, this aspect of the matter has not
been referred to. Today also, none of the
learned
Counsel
appearing
for
the
respective parties pointed out to the Court
that the applicant's age as mentioned in the
application, is 16 years and he is a child as
per law. It was only while dictating the
order that the Court itself found out the age
of
the
applicant
mentioned
in
the
application.

15. In case a child aged 16 years was
taken into custody and he has been
languishing in regular Jail with other
under-trial accused persons and convicts, it
is indeed a very disturbing fact.

16. The Juvenile Act was enacted
about a decade ago, inter alia, with the
object of adopting a child friendly approach
in adjudication and disposal of matters
in the best interest of children. Section
2(12) of the Juvenile Justice Act
provides that "child" means a person
who has not completed eighteen years
of age. Section 2(13) provides that
"child in conflict with law" means a
child who is alleged or found to have
committed an offence and who has not
completed eighteen years of age on the
date of commission of such offence.
Section 2(15) of the Act provides that
"child friendly" means any behaviour,
conduct, practice, process, attitude,
environment
or
treatment
that
is
humane, considerate and in the best
interest of the child.

17. Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice
Act needs to be looked into, which is being
reproduced below: -

"9. Procedure to be followed by
a Magistrate who has not been empowered
under this Act.-(1) When a Magistrate,
not empowered to exercise the powers of
the Board under this Act is of the opinion
that the person alleged to have committed
the offence and brought before him is a
child, he shall, without any delay, record
such opinion and forward the child
immediately along with the record of such
proceedings
to
the
Board
having
jurisdiction.

(2) In case a person alleged to
have committed an offence claims before
a court other than a Board, that the
person is a child or was a child on the date
of commission of the offence, or if the
court itself is of the opinion that the
person was a child on the date of
commission of the offence, the said court
shall make an inquiry, take such evidence
as may be necessary (but not an affidavit)
to determine the age of such person, and
shall record a finding on the matter,
stating the age of the person as nearly as
may be:

Provided that such a claim may
be raised before any court and it shall be
ecognized at any stage, even after final
disposal of the case, and such a claim shall
be determined in accordance with the
provisions contained in this Act and the
rules made thereunder even if the person
has ceased to be a child on or before the
date of commencement of this Act.

(3) If the court finds that a person
has committed an offence and was a child
on the date of commission of such offence,
it shall forward the child to the Board for
passing
appropriate
orders
and
the
sentence, if any, passed by the court shall
be deemed to have no effect.

(4) In case a person under this
section is required to be kept in protective
custody, while the person's claim of being
5 All. Arjun @ Golu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
773
a child is being inquired into, such person
may be placed, in the intervening period in
a place of safety.

(Emphasis added)

18. Chapter IV of the Juvenile Justice
Act lays down the procedure in relation to
children in conflict with law and Section
10, 11 & 12 of the Act falling in this
chapter are being quoted below:-

10.
Apprehension
of
child
alleged to be in conflict with law.-(1) As
soon as a child alleged to be in conflict
with law is apprehended by the police, such
child shall be placed under the charge of
the special juvenile police unit or the
designated Child Welfare Police Officer,
who shall produce the child before the
Board without any loss of time but within a
period
of
twenty-four
hours
of
apprehending the child excluding the time
necessary for the journey, from the place
where such child was apprehended:

Provided that in no case, a child
alleged to be in conflict with law shall be
placed in a police lock-up or lodged in a
jail.

(2) The State Government shall
make rules consistent with this Act,-

(i) to provide for persons through
whom (including registered voluntary or
non-governmental organisations) any child
alleged to be in conflict with law may be
produced before the Board;

(ii) to provide for the manner in
which the child alleged to be in conflict
with law may be sent to an observation
home or place of safety, as the case may be.

11. Role of person in whose
charge child in conflict with law is
placed.-Any person in whose charge a
child in conflict with law is placed, shall
while the order is in force, have
responsibility of the said child, as if the
said person was the child's parent and
responsible for the child's maintenance:

Provided that the child shall
continue in such person's charge for the
period
stated
by
the
Board,
notwithstanding that the said child is
claimed by the parents or any other person
except when the Board is of the opinion
that the parent or any other person are fit
to exercise charge over such child.

12. Bail to a person who is
apparently a child alleged to be in conflict
with law.-(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 (2 of 1974) 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,
and the Board shall record the reasons for
denying the bail and circumstances that led
to such a decision.

(2) When such person having
been apprehended is not released on bail
under sub-section (1) by the officer-incharge of the police station, such officer
shall cause the person to be kept only in an
observation home 22[or a place of safety,
as the case may be,] in such manner as
may be prescribed until the person can be
brought before a Board.
774 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(3) When such person is not
released on bail under sub-section (1) by
the Board, it shall make an order sending
him to an observation home or a place of
safety, as the case may be, for such period
during the pendency of the inquiry
regarding the person, as may be specified
in the order.

(4) When a child in conflict with
law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail
order within seven days of the bail order,
such child shall be produced before the
Board for modification of the conditions of
bail."

(Emphasis added)

19. A bare perusal of the statutory
provision contained in the Juvenile Justice
Act
indicates
that
intention
of
the
legislature is that a child who is in conflict
with law, shall not be treated as an ordinary
adult accused person and he shall be treated
with a lot more sensitivity with an object of
ensuring his better future and welfare.

20. Section 9(2) of the Act mandates
that if the court is of the opinion that the
person was a child on the date of the
commission of the offence, the court shall
make an enquiry to determine the age of
the person. When the accused himself made
an application dated 08.04.2024 stating that
his date of birth is 18.04.2008 and he was
aged 15 years 10 months and 16 days on
the date of commission of offence i.e.
05.03.2024, and he is still a child, the trial
court should have proceeded to decide this
application first with all expedition and the
applicant ought not have been made to
languish in jail with adult under-trial
accused
persons
and
convicts.
The
approach of the trial court in not deciding
the application dated 08.04.2024 given by
the applicant for declaring him as juvenile
in conflict with law has compelled the
applicant child to remain in jail with adult
under-trial accused persons and convicts
for more than one year. In case the trial
court ultimately comes to a conclusion that
the applicant is a juvenile in conflict with
law, the loss which has been caused to the
applicant by making him spend a period of
more than one year in regular jail with
under-trial accused persons and convicts,
cannot be made good by any means.

21. Section 11 of the Juvenile Justice
Act provides that any person in whose
charge a child in conflict with law is
placed, shall while the order is in force,
have responsibility of the said child, as if
the said person was the child's parent and
responsible for the child's maintenance.
When the applicant was lodged in Jail, it
was the duty of the Jail authorities to have
taken care of his interests as his parents and
they should have taken appropriate steps to
ensure that the benefits of the provisions of
the Juvenile Justice Act were provided to
the applicant.

22. In any case, when this matter was
placed before a coordinate Bench of this
Court for the first time on 19.11.2024, it
was the duty of the learned Counsel for the
applicant as well as the learned A.G.A. to
have pointed out this fact to this Court that
the applicant is a child as per his
educational certificate annexed with the
bail application, but they failed to perform
this duty. None of the learned Counsel
pointed out this fact even today. Had this
Court missed this point for want of proper
assistance from the learned Counsel for the
parties, the applicant would have continued
to be denied the protections available to
him under the laws.

23. Although it is correct that the
Court is under oath to deliver justice, it is
5 All. Sanjay Singh Vs. State of U.P.
775
equally true that the learned Counsel, who
are responsible officers of the Court, are
also under duty to assist the Court properly
in dispensation of Justice. Although lack of
proper assistance would be no excuse to an
unjust order but it is equally true that had
this Court missed the aforesaid material
available on record which was not pointed
out by any of the learned Counsel
appearing in the case, the injustice being
meted out to a child would have continued.

24. It is directed that the Special
Judge, POCSO Court, Pratapgarh shall
decide the application dated 08.04.2024
filed in Case No. 2083 of 2024 arising out
of Case Crime No. 52/2024, under Sections
363, 366, 376(3) IPC & 5J(2) 5L(6) of
POCSO
Act,
Police
Station
Aaspur,
Desara, District Pratapgarh for declaring
the applicant as a juvenile, expeditiously
without granting unnecessary adjournment
to any of the parties and in case the
applicant is found to be a juvenile, he
should be dealt with in accordance with the
provisions of Juvenile Justice Care and
Protection Act.

25. The Registrar General is directed
to circulate a copy of this order to all the
Judicial Officers in the State through the
District Judges of all the districts with the
object of sensitizing the judicial officers to
be more careful while dealing with criminal
matters where the accused appears to be a
juvenile or he claims to be a juvenile.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 775
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2003

Sanjay Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri B.N. Rai, Sri Adarsh Kumar, Sri
Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Ms. Vijay Laxmi

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 -
Scheduled
Castes
and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section
3(2)(v) - Rape and Caste-Based Offence -
Appellant challenged conviction under Section
376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act for raping a
minor Scheduled Caste girl, sentenced to 10 years
rigorous imprisonment with Rs. 5,000 fine and life
imprisonment with Rs. 5,000 fine, respectively.
Prosecution
relied
on
victim's
testimony,
corroborated by informant (father), alleging
forcible rape in an Arhar field. Appellant argued
the victim was major, consented, and no castebased motive existed, citing absence of injuries
and medical findings of habitual intercourse. The
court held the victim's testimony, supported by
prompt FIR and informant's account, was reliable,
and absence of injuries or spermatozoa did not
negate rape, per St. of Rajasthan vs. Noore Khan
and Prithichand vs. St. of H.P.. Victim's age was
confirmed as 14 years 6 months via school
records, negating consent, per St. of U.P. vs.
Manoj Kumar Pandey. However, no evidence
showed the rape was committed due to the
victim's Scheduled Caste status, making Section
3(2)(v) inapplicable, per Dinesh @ Buddha vs. St.
of Rajasthan. Conviction under Section 376 IPC
upheld, sentence reduced to 7 years with fine
enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000 considering appellant's
age and time elapsed. Conviction under Section
3(2)(v) SC/ST Act set aside. Appeal partly allowed.
(Paras 24-40)

Appeal partly allowed.

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of Rajasthan vs. Noore Khan, (2000) 3
SLT 389