# Deepak @ Bhoora Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 695
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-23
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No.858 of 2022
- **Bench:** Gajendra Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deepak-bhoora-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47777
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Child) Act, 2015 -
Sections 12, 12(1) & 102 - Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act,
2012- Section - 4 - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section - 161, - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306, 354,
376(d), 452 & 506- Criminal Revision -
against rejection of Bail Application & appeal
against rejection - FIR - offence of teasing,
molest, gang rape, threat as well as pouring
kerosene on victim and set fire with intention
to kill the victim - end of justice cannot be
stand in vacuum - the nature and manner of
commission of the crime cannot be ignored
while striking a balance between demands of
justice of either of the sides - facts cannot
go in oblivion that victim was admitted in
hospital with suicidal thermal burns by
kerosene, she was pregnant due to gangraped - she was faced MTP and ultimately
during treatment of burring she was died
due to septic shock - release on bail would
adversely impact the law and order and
equilibrium of an ordered society - the act of
revisionist has put the society and its
surroundings on alarm that no child of
tender years and more than that the parents
or the guardians of a young child would feel
safe during their daily routine - thus, release
of accused in conflict with law would lead to
ends of justice being defeated - accordingly
revision is dismissed. (Para - 14, 18, 19)

Criminal Revision Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

10 All. Deepak @ Bhoora Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
695
not find any illegality or impropriety in the
impugned order.

19. The revision is, accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 695
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAJENDRA KUMAR, J.

Criminal Revision No.858 of 2022

Deepak @ Bhoora ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Subash Chandra Yadav, Sri Vimlesh Kuar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Child) Act, 2015 -
Sections 12, 12(1) & 102 - Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act,
2012- Section - 4 - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section - 161, - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306, 354,
376(d), 452 & 506- Criminal Revision -
against rejection of Bail Application & appeal
against rejection - FIR - offence of teasing,
molest, gang rape, threat as well as pouring
kerosene on victim and set fire with intention
to kill the victim - end of justice cannot be
stand in vacuum - the nature and manner of
commission of the crime cannot be ignored
while striking a balance between demands of
justice of either of the sides - facts cannot
go in oblivion that victim was admitted in
hospital with suicidal thermal burns by
kerosene, she was pregnant due to gangraped - she was faced MTP and ultimately
during treatment of burring she was died
due to septic shock - release on bail would
adversely impact the law and order and
equilibrium of an ordered society - the act of
revisionist has put the society and its
surroundings on alarm that no child of
tender years and more than that the parents
or the guardians of a young child would feel
safe during their daily routine - thus, release
of accused in conflict with law would lead to
ends of justice being defeated - accordingly
revision is dismissed. (Para - 14, 18, 19)

Criminal Revision Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Shiv Kumar Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Revision
No. 379 of 2009, decided on 22.12.2009

2. Dharmendra Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Revision
No. 4141 of 2017, decided on 13.04.2018

3. Juvenile X Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Revision
No.1693 of 2021, decided on 22.02.2022

4. X. Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Revision No.860 of
2022, decided on 21.03.2022

5. Amit Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Revision No.
1852 of 2015, decided on 16.03.2016

6. Vijendra Kumar Mali Vs St. of U.P., 2003 (1)
JIC 103

7. Om Prakash Vs St. of Raj. & anr., (2012) 5
SCC 201

8. Mangesh Rajbhar Vs St. of U.P. & anr., 2018
(2) ACR 1941.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar, J.)

1. It appears that name of the
revisionist-juvenile has been disclosed in
the memo of revision. This fault from the
side of revisionist escaped detection by the
Registry. The concerned Officer of the
Registry is directed to delete the name of
the revisionist-minor from the title of the
revision as fed and shown in the data on
website and represent him as "Minor 'X'
696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Through His Natural Guardian Father
Arjun Singh".

2. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist, learned AGA for the State as
well as learned counsel for the private
respondents and perused the record.

3. This criminal revision under
Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, has
been filed on behalf of the minor 'X'
through his natural guardian/father Arjun
Singh s/o Mohan singh, R/o Village-
Gokulpur, Police Station Nidhauli Kalan,
District Etah with the prayer to admit the
minor on bail alongwith the prayer to set
aside the order dated 15.11.2021 passed by
the Juvenile Justice Board, Etah and order
dated 20.01.2022 passed by the Additional
District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge,
POCSO Act, Etah in Criminal Appeal
No.48 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime
No.26 of 2019 under Section 376-D, 354,
506, 452, 306 IPC and 4 POCSO Act,
Police Station-Nidhauli Kalan, District-
Etah by which the criminal appeal No.48 of
2021 was rejected.

4. As per the prosecution version,
instant FIR has been lodged by Veerpal
Singh, father of the victim, alleging therein
that his minor daughter/victim was being
teased and molested since after Diwali
festival by the juvenile son of Arjun along
with his cousin brother Pushpendra and
Manpal. and the complaint's family along
with victim were also terrorised and
threatened with dire consequences by them.
In the evening of 23.02.2021, Juvenile and
Manpal had caught the victim near Marghat
with bad intention when they (accused)
were returning back from the house of the
victim after taking 'Aata'. On hearing the
scream of the victim, some people came on
the spot, thereafter she save herself.
Thereafter, when victim came to her house
and told about the said incident to her
mother, and on getting information about
the above incident, the complainant's wife
scolded the juvenile and Manpal for which,
the victim was threatened and scared in the
said night by the juvenile and other accused
persons. On 24.02.2021, at about 05:00 am,
when victim was making tea in her house,
finding her alone, the juvenile trespassed
into the house and caught her; when she
tried to save her, then the juvenile poured
diesel upon her and set her on fire with the
intention to kill her. Thereafter, victim in
burnt condition was brought by Munnesh
R/O Fatehpur in Bolero vehicle to Etah
Distt. Hospital, Whereafter first aid, she
was sent in an ambulance to Aligarh
Medical
College.
According
to
the
complainant, victim has been gangraped by
the accused-persons, due to which she was
pregnant and after treatment of some days,
ultimately she died on 15.03.2021. Hence,
F.I.R regarding this incident was lodged on
03.03.2021 at about 14:40 hours being case
crime no. 26/2021 u/s 376-D, 354, 506,
452, 307 I.P.C and 4 POSCO act, at P.S
Nidhauli Kalan, Distt. Etah against the
Juvenile, Pushpendra and Manpal, in which
after investigation charge-sheet has been
submitted against the juvenile and Malla @
Manpal u/s 376-D, 354, 506, 306 I.P.C and
4 POSCO Act, on which cognizance has
been taken by the Court of Special Judge
(Exclusive
POSCO
Act),
Etah
on
06.05.2021.

5. During the proceedings before the
Juvenile Justice Board, the revisionist was
found to be the age of 16 years, 10 months
and 13 days on the date of the incident and
was declared juvenile vide order dated
04.10.2021. A bail application through
guardian was moved before the Juvenile
10 All. Deepak @ Bhoora Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
697
Justice Board, Etah, but the same was
rejected. Thereafter, a criminal appeal
No.48/2021 was preferred by the father and
guardian of the juvenile and the same was
also dismissed vide order dated 20.01.2022.

6. Aggrieved by the above orders, this
criminal revision has been preferred to setaside the same and to admit the juvenile to
bail.

7. First and foremost contention is
that gravity of the offence is not relevant
consideration for refusing bail to the
juvenile as has been held by a coordinate
Bench of that Court in Criminal Revision
No. 379 of 2009 (Shiv Kumar vs. State of
U.P.) decided on 22.12.2009, Criminal
Revision No. 4141 of 2017 (Dharmendra
vs. State of U.P.) decided on 13.04.2018,
Criminal Revision No.1693 of 2021
(Juvenile X vs. State of U.P.) decided on
22.02.2022 and Criminal Revision No.860
of 2022 (X vs State of U.P.) decided on
21.03.2022
and
Criminal
Revision
No.1852 of 2015 (Amit vs. State of U.P.)
decided on 16.03.2016.

8. In Criminal Revision No. 1852 of
2015 (Amit vs. State of U.P.) decided on
16.03.2016, the Court referred to the earlier
judgement in Vijendra Kumar Mali vs.
State of U.P., 2003 (1) J.I.C. 103, wherein
it was observed that in a number of
judgements, it has been categorically held
that bail to the juvenile can only be refused
if one of the grounds as provided in proviso
to Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act,
2015 exists. So far as the ground of gravity
is concerned, it is not covered under the
relevant provisions. If the bail application
of the juvenile was to be considered under
the provisions of Cr.P.C., there would have
been absolutely no necessity for the
enactment of the aforesaid Act. The Section
12 of the Act contains a non-obstante
clause, which indicates that the general
provisions of Cr.P.C. shall not apply.
Therefore, the gravity or seriousness of the
offence should not be taken as an obstacle
or hindrance to refuse the bail to delinquent
juvenile.

9. It is contended that there existed no
material to justify rejection of bail on the
grounds envisaged in Section 12 of the Act.
In view of the above provisions, the 'child
in conflict with law', who has been in
custody for quite some time deserves to be
released on bail otherwise, the purpose of
provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile
Justice Act shall stand defeated. It is also
contended that care of the juvenile in a
child care institution cannot be preferred
over his care in his biological family.

10. Learned AGA and learned counsel
for the respondent no. 2 have opposed the
prayer for bail.

11. The court is conscious of the fact,
which has been held in case of Om
Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan and
another; (2012) 5 SCC 201, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the
Juvenile Justice Act was enacted with a
laudable object of providing a separate
forum or a special court for holding trial of
juvenile as it was felt that child become
delinquent by force of circumstance and not
by choice and hence they need to be treated
with care and sensitivity while dealing and
trying cases involving criminal offence. It
was further observed that in cases when an
accused is involved in grave and serious
offence which he committed in a well
planned manner reflecting his maturity of
mind the court ought to be more careful.
Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly
brought in focus the nature of crime,
698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conduct of an accused as reflected in the
method employed in the commission of
crime as a relevant consideration while
considering the matters of juvenile.

12. It may be noted that the Hon'ble
Apex Court gave this view in the
background of the facts that age of the
juvenile as determined by the courts below
was
not
free
from
doubts.
In
the
circumstances, the Court observed that
where accused commits grave and heinous
offence and thereafter attempts to take
statutory shelter under the guise of being a
minor, a casual or cavalier approach while
recording his age, is not acceptable. It is
also observed that the shelter of the
principle of benevolent legislation of the
Juvenile Justice Act is meant for minors,
who
are
innocent
law
breakers.
Nevertheless, in my view, the nature of
crime the juvenile was found involved in, is
again at the center stage.

13. In Mangesh Rajbhar Vs. State
of U.P. and Another; 2018 (2) ACR 1941,
a coordinate Bench of this Court noted
down very important observations which I
choose to refer avidly:

"13. No doubt, the Juvenile
Justice Act is a beneficial legislation
intended for reform of the juvenile/child in
conflict with the law, but the law also
demands that justice should be done not
only to the accused, but also to the
accuser."

25. It is not that this aspect of the
gravity of the offence has been considered
irrelevant to the issue of grant or refusal of
bail to a minor in the past and before the
present Act of 2015 came into force. In a
decision of this Court under the Juvenile
Justice Act, 2000 where the interest of the
society were placed seemingly not on a
level of playing field with the juvenile, this
Court in construing the provisions of
Section 12 in that Act that were pari
materia to Section 12 of the Act in the
matter of grant of bail to a minor held in
the case of Monu @ Moni @ Rahul @
Rohit v. State of U.P., 2011 (74) ACC 353 in
paragraph Nos. 14 and 15 of the report as
under:

"14. Aforesaid section no where
ordains that bail to a juvenile is a must in
all cases as it can be denied for the
reasons"......if there appears reasonable
grounds for believing that the release 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."

15. In the light of above statutory
provision bail prayer of the juvenile
revisionist has to be considered on the
surrounding
facts
and
circumstances.
Merely by declaration of being a juvenile
does not entitle a juvenile in conflict with
law to be released on bail as a matter of
right. The Act has a solemn purpose to
achieve betterment of juvenile offenders but
it is not a shelter home for those juvenile
offenders
who
have
got
criminal
proclivities and a criminal psychology. It
has a reformative approach but does not
completely
shun
retributive
theory.
Legislature has preserved larger interest of
society even in cases of bail to a juvenile.
The Act seeks to achieve moral physical
and psychological betterment of juvenile
offender and therefore if, it is found that the
ends of justice will be defeated or that goal
desired by the legislature can be achieved
by detaining a juvenile offender in a
juvenile home, bail can be denied to him.
10 All. Deepak @ Bhoora Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
699
This is perceptible from phraseology of
section 12 itself. Legislature in its wisdom
has therefore carved out exceptions to the
rule of bail to a juvenile."

14. I am in respectful agreement with
the above observations. Ordinarily, the
merits of the matter may not be important
where the Courts are inclined to give
benefit of bail as envisaged in Section 12 of
the Juvenile Justice Act, I am of the firm
view that nature of crime including other
merits of the matter may assume ample
significance when the Court has to form an
opinion about the ends of justice. It may be
noted that the phrase 'ends of justice',
cannot stand in a vacuum. The manner of
commission of the crime, the nature thereof
cannot be ignored while striking a balance
between the demands of justice of either of
the sides. Hence, it cannot be said that the
nature of the crime, the manner or
methodology
applied,
the
extent
of
involvement and evidence available are of
no relevance when judging the entitlement
of a juveniles to bail in cases where
heinous crimes are committed. The ends of
justice is undoubtedly a meaningful phrase
with multidimensional implications. The
Courts are under obligation to address the
concerns of both the sides and strike a
delicate balance between the competing
and often conflicting the demands of
justice. When viewing the matters of bail
from this particular angle of deciphering
the ends of justice not only the nature of
crime, but the manner of commission
thereof, methodology applied, the mental
state, the extent of involvement, the
evidence available shall be the factors to
reckon with. The phrase 'ends of justice'
may bring in within its interpretation such
factors which may otherwise seem not so
material or may be seemingly extraneous,
irrelevant or unimportant at first glance for
the purpose of applicability of last part of
the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Juvenile
Justice Act.

15. Following facts cannot go in
oblivion that victim was admitted in the
hospital on 24.02.2021 with suicidal
thermal burns by kerosene; gang-rape has
been committed with the victim by the
juvenile and other accused; at the time of
admission in the hospital she was pregnant;
On request of her family, victim underwent
Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP);
victim
was
managed
with
regular
debridement, fasciotomey for right hand
and forearm, intraveinous fluids, antibiotics
and other supportive medication, and
ultimately, she died due to septic shock on
15.03.2021.
Statement
of
the
victim
recorded as dying declaration, as well as
Post-mortem Report of the victim dated
15.03.2021 has also supported the story of
the prosecution.

16. In nutshell, it can be inferred that
the juvenile was found to have complicity
in this frightful crime. The juvenile was
found above 16 years i.e., 16 years, 10
months and 13 days on the date of the
occurrence. It was a borderline case where
the accused was reaching the age of
adulthood. The manner, in which, the crime
was committed and the nature thereof
impels me to draw a conclusion that in case
the juvenile is released on bail, he shall fall
of in the same hands and environs which
most probably contributed towards his
criminal bent of mind.

17. This Court has considered the
rival submissions and perused the record. It
may be true that the Courts below have not
undertaken a careful exercise by evaluating
the
social
investigation
report
while
forming their opinion on the first of the two
700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dis-entitling parameters under the proviso
to Section 12 of the Act, that is to say, the
prospect of release bringing the child in
conflict into association with some known
criminal or exposing him to moral, physical
or psychological danger. But, that does not
end the matter. It is a case where the
revisionist, though below the age of 17
years,
has
ravished
a
very
young
prosecutorix. About the factum of the
incident, there is reasonable assurance at
this stage, short of the charge being tested
at the trial. The prosecution is consistent in
the FIR lodged by the prosecutorix's father,
the statement of the prosecutorix and her
mother, recorded by the police, under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the statement of
the prosecutorix, as dying declaration, in
which she has stated that juvenile along
with Manpal used to tease and catch her
wherever and whenever they wish and she
got pregnant, when she apprised them
about the same, they said to her to set
herself on fire and resultantly she self
immolated herself.

18. In view of the above, this Court
wishes to say is that for the present, the
Court seized as it is of the bail matter, there
is a reasonable assurance about the charge
being prima facie credible. It is true that the
merits of the case or prima facie tenability
of the charge, like an adult, is not entirely
decisive to the fate of the bail plea. At the
same time, it is not altogether irrelevant.
The gravity of the charge, manner of its
perpetration, circumstances in which the
offence is alleged to have been committed,
its immediate and not so immediate impact
on the society at large and the locality, in
particular, besides its impact on the
aggrieved family, are all matters to be taken
into reckoning while judging a juvenile's
bail plea. All these factors are relevant
under the last dis-entitling clause postulated
under the proviso to Section 12(1) of the
Act, which says that release of the juvenile
would ''defeat the ends of justice'. After all
''defeat the ends of justice' is not a word of
art. It has been thoughtfully introduced by
the legislature to arm the Court with a right
to overcome an otherwise absolute right to
bail,
where
in
the
totality
of
the
circumstances, release on bail would
adversely impact the law and order and the
equilibrium of an ordered society.

19. The case in hand shows that the
revisionist by his action, if true, has put the
society and its surroundings on alarm. His
actions have led to a situation, where prima
facie no child of tender years, and more
than that the parents or the guardians of a
young child, would feel safe during their
daily routine, when there is nothing
otherwise to call extra caution. In the
opinion of this Court, it is a case where
release of the child in conflict with law
would lead to ends of justice being
defeated.

20. The learned appellate Court and
the Board have given concurrent view and
have found him not at all entitled to bail
and have given observation that an
effective protection and supervision is
needed. Such an observation for declining
the bail cannot be faulted in the totality of
the circumstances of the matter. I am of the
view that it is not a fit case to grant bail to
the present revisionist.

21. The revision is, accordingly,
dismissed.

22. Copy of the order be sent to
concerned Section of the Registry for
immediate compliance of direction given in
Para-1 of the order.
----------
10 All. "Ex" (changed name) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
701
(2022) 10 ILRA 701
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAJENDRA KUMAR, J.

Criminal Revision No. 908 of 2022

"Ex" (changed name) ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Narendra Deo Shukla, Sri Vivek Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012-accused lured
victim of 6 years old-took him to a secret placeestablished unnatural relation-JJ Board after
giving him benefit of one year on lower sidemedical
report-19
years-on
the
date
of
incidence-accused was below 18 years-declared
juvenile-bail rejected-St.ment of victim u/s 161
and 164 Cr.P.C. St.d accused has made
unnatural sex with him-manner and nature of
crime-if juvenile released on bail-he shall fall of
in same hands-criminal bent of mind-not
entitled to bail.

Revision dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Criminal Revision No.379 of 2009 (Shiv Kumar
Vs St. of U.P.) decided on 22.12.2009

2. Criminal Revision No. 4141 of 2017
(Dharmendra Vs St. of U.P.) decided on
13.04.2018

3. Criminal Revision No.1693 of 2021 (Juvenile X
Vs St. of U.P.) decided on 22.02.2022

4. Criminal Revision No.860 of 2022 (X vs St. of
U.P.) decided 0n 21.03,2022
5. Criminal Revision No. 1852 of 2015 (Amit Vs
St. of U.P.) decided on 16.03.2016

6. Vijendra Kumar Mali Vs St. of U.P., 2003 (1)
J.I.C. 103

7. Om Prakash Vs St. of Raj. & anr.; (2012) 5
SCC 201, the Hon'ble Apex Court

8. Mangesh Rajbhar Vs St. of U.P. & anr.; 2018
(2) ACR 1941
(Delivered by Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri N.D. Shukla, learned
counsel for the revisionist, Sri M.P.S. Gaur,
learned AGA for the State as well as
learned counsel for the respondent no. 2
and perused the record.

2. This criminal revision under
Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, has
been filed on behalf of the minor 'X'
through his natural guardian/mother Anita
w/o Shri Prakash, R/o Village- Merdha,
Police Station Khutahan, District Jaunpur
with the prayer to admit the minor on bail
alongwith the prayer to set aside the order
dated 15.12.2021 passed by the Juvenile
Justice Board, Jaunpur and order dated
01.02.2022 passed by the Additional
District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge,
POCSO Act, Jaunpur in Misc. Case No.
102/2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 81
of 2021 under Section 377, 352, 504 IPC
and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police StationKhutahan, District-Jaunpur by which the
criminal appeal No.88 of 2021 was
rejected.

3. As per the version of the FIR
lodged by Sanjeet Singh (informant) father
of the victim, it is alleged that on
04.04.2021 at 5.00 P.M. the accused
revisionist and co-accused Nitin Tiwari
lured his son (victim) aged about 06 years