# Golu Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 8 ILRA 649
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-06-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2190 of 2019
- **Bench:** J.J.Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/golu-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45883
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015-all coaccused-adult-admitted
to
bailincluding prime accused-no justification
to refuse bail.

Revision allowed. (E-9)

Cases referred:-
1.Dharmendra (Juvenile) Vs. St. of U.P. &
ors., 2018 (7) ADJ 864,

## Text

8 All. Golu Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
649
shall not commit any offence and shall
observe
good
behaviour
and
shall
maintain peace during the period of one
year. If there is breach of any of the
conditions, they will subject themselves
to
undergo
sentence
before
the
Magistrate. The bonds and sureties
aforesaid be filed by the accused persons
within two months from the date of the
Judgment as per law and Rules.

18. Accordingly, the revision is
disposed of finally.

19. Let a certified copy of this order
be sent to the court concerned for
compliance.
----------
(2020)08ILR A649
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.06.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J.MUNIR, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2190 of 2019

Golu ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Civil Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015-all coaccused-adult-admitted
to
bailincluding prime accused-no justification
to refuse bail.

Revision allowed. (E-9)

Cases referred:-
1.Dharmendra (Juvenile) Vs. St. of U.P. &
ors., 2018 (7) ADJ 864,

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J.Munir, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist and learned A.G.A. appearing
on behalf of the State.

2. This revision is directed against an
order of Ms. Renu Rao, learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Hapur dated 29.04.2019
dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2019,
under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') preferred
by the revisionist from an order of the Juvenile
Justice Board, Hapur rejecting the revisionist's
bail plea in Case Crime No. 283 of 2018,
under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.

3. The FIR giving rise to the crime
briefly says that the informant's son was
weighing goods at his shop in the
evening hours at 8.00 o'clock when
Shiva,
Kamal,
Anand
and
Golu
(revisionist) all sons of Suraj alighted
there and battered Vishal. Amongst them
Shiva assaulted Vishal with a knife blow
to his abdomen, injuring him. The report
shows that the victim had been rushed to
the hospital for medical aid. The bail plea
of the revisionists that came up before
the Juvenile Justice Board was rejected
going by the Social Investigation Report
which shows that there was lack of
discipline and control in the family. The
revisionist preferred an appeal to the
learned Sessions Judge which too has
been dismissed by the order impugned.

4. Aggrieved, this revision has been filed.

5. The submission of the learned
counsel for the revisionist is that of all
650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the four offenders, the revisionist is the
only one who is a juvenile. The three
adult offenders have been admitted to
bail. He has called attention of the Court
to the bail order dated 23.07.2018 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Hapur in
Bail Application No. 833 of 2018,
enlarging Shiva on bail. Likewise, the
Court has also been taken through the
bail order dated 14.08.2018, also passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Hapur in
Bail Application No. 1010 of 2018
granting bail to Kamal and Anand.
Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that Shiva is not only an adult
offender but the role of assault by knife
has also been assigned to him. He
submits that once the accused, who has
been assigned the role of assault, is
granted bail and all the other accused,
who are adults are enlarged on bail, there
is no justification to detain a juvenile
against whom the allegation is one of
marginal participation. He submits that
the orders impugned are bad inasmuch as
the Courts below have proceeded on the
reasoning that the revisionist is disentitled to bail because the atmosphere in
his family is not conducive to well-being
of the minor and may, in the event of his
release on bail, bring him into association
with some known criminal. He submits
that the approach of the Courts below is
patently flawed and manifestly illegal
and that the Court's below have declined
bail on irrelevant considerations.

6. This Court has keenly considered
the matter. In a case where on merits an
accused is entitled to bail, it would
indeed be quite irrelevant to judge his
case on the basis of the dis-entitling
categories under the proviso to subSection (1) of Section 12 of the Act,
because he happens to be a juvenile. If
this construction were to be adopted, a
case where an adult offender would be
entitled to bail, a juvenile would still be
subjected to incarceration. That does not
merely appear to be the legislative intent.
The Act is a beneficial legislation,
designed to protect the interests of a
juvenile. The provisions of Section 12
engraft a universal rule of bail to all
juveniles, unless their case falls under
three categories enumerated in the
proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 12
of the Act. This provision is designed to
come to the rescue of a juvenile, where,
if he were an adult, he would not be
entitled to bail. It is certainly not framed
to work in a way that a juvenile who, if
an adult would be entitled to bail but
being a juvenile have his liberty hedged
in and circumscribed by the dis-entitling
conditions mentioned in the proviso to
Section 12(1) of the Act (supra). If this
construction were to be adopted, in the
opinion of this Court, it would expose the
provision to a challenge about its
constitutionality. It is well settled that a
provision is to be construed in a manner
that saves it from the peril of being ultra
vires.

7. I have considered this question in
Dharmendra (Juvenile) vs. State of
U.P. and others, Criminal Revision
no.4141 of 2017 [2018 (7) ADJ 864],
where it is held:

"10. The matter can be looked
at from another vantage. In case the
revisionist were an adult and stood
charged of the offence that he faces with
a weak circumstantial evidence of last
seen and confession to the police, in all
probability, it would have entitled him to
bail pending trial. If on the kind of
evidence forthcoming an adult would be
8 All. Golu Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
651
entitled to bail, denying bail to a child in
conflict with law may be denying the
juvenile/ child in conflict with law the
equal protection of laws guaranteed
under Article 14 of the Constitution.

11. The rule in Section 12(1) of
the Act is in favour of bail always to a
juvenile/ child in conflict with law except
when the case falls into one or the other
categories denial contemplated by the
proviso. It is not the rule about bail in
Section 12 of the Act that in case a child
in conflict with law is brought before the
Board or Court, his case is not to be seen
on
merits
prima
facie
about
his
complicity at all for the purpose granting
him bail; and all that has been done is to
see if his case falls is one or the other
exceptions, where he can be denied bail.
The rule in Section 12 sanctioning bail
universally to every child in conflict with
law presupposes that there is a prima
facie case against him in the assessment
of the Board or the Court based on the
evidence placed at that stage. It is where
a case against a child in conflict with law
is prima facie made out that the rule in
Section 12(1) of the Act that sanctions
bail as a rule, except the three categories
contemplated by the proviso comes into
play. It is certainly not the rule, and, in
the opinion of the Court cannot be so,
that a case on materials and evidence
collected not being made out against a
child at all, his case has to be tested on
the three parameters where bail may be
denied presuming that a prima facie case
is constructively there. Thus, it would
always have to be seen whether a case
prima facie on merits against a child in
conflict with law is there on the basis of
material produced by the prosecution
against him. If it is found that a prima
facie case on the basis of material
produced by the prosecution is there that
would have led to a denial of a bail to an
adult offender, in that case also the Rule
in Section 12(1) of the Act mandates that
bail is to be granted to a juvenile/ child in
conflict with law except where his case
falls into any of the three disentitling
categories contemplated by the proviso.

12. In the opinion of this Court,
therefore, the perception that merits of the
case on the basis of prima facie evidence is
absolutely irrelevant to a juvenile's bail plea
under the Act would not be in conformity
with the law. The catena of decisions that
speak about merits of the case or the charge
against a juvenile being irrelevant, proceed
on facts and not an assumption that a case on
merits is made out, and, not where the case is
not at all made out prima facie. It is not that a
child alleged to be in conflict with law
against whom there is not iota of evidence to
connect him to the crime would still have bail
denied to him because his case may be placed
in or the other disentitling categories under
the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act. If this
kind of a construction were to be adopted it
might expose the provisions of Section 12(1)
of the Act to challenge on ground of violating
the guarantee of equal protection of laws
enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. It
is an enduring principle that a construction
that lends a statute to challenge about its
constitutionality should be eschewed and one
that saves and upholds its vires is to be
adopted. In this context the guidance of their
Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Japani Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty,
(2007) 7 SCC 394 may be referred to:-

"51. The matter can be looked
at from different angle also. Once it is
accepted (and there is no dispute about it)
that it is not within the domain of the
complainant or prosecuting agency to
652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
take cognizance of an offence or to issue
process and the only thing the former can
do is to file a complaint or initiate
proceedings in accordance with law. If
that action of initiation of proceedings
has been taken within the period of
limitation,
the
complainant
is
not
responsible for any delay on the part of
the Court or Magistrate in issuing process
or taking cognizance of an offence. Now,
if he is sought to be penalized because of
the omission, default or inaction on the
part of the Court or Magistrate, the
provision of law may have to be tested on
the touchstone of Article 14 of the
Constitution. It can possibly be urged
that such a provision is totally arbitrary,
irrational and unreasonable. It is settled
law that a Court of Law would interpret a
provision which would help sustaining
the validity of law by applying the
doctrine of reasonable construction rather
than
making
it
vulnerable
and
unconstitutional by adopting rule of
'litera legis'. Connecting the provision of
limitation in Section 468 of the Code
with issuing of process or taking of
cognizance by the Court may make it
unsustainable and ultra vires Article 14
of the Constitution."

8. Here, since all the accused, who
are adult, have been admitted to bail,
including co-accused, Shiva, who is
credited with the role of assault with a
knife, there is absolutely no justification
for the Court's below to have refused bail
to the revisionist on ground that he is
likely to come into association with any
known criminal. This Court has perused
the Social Investigation Report. In the
opinion of this Court, there is no positive
material on the basis of which it may be
inferred that in the event of release on
bail, the revisionist would come into
association with any known criminal or
that would expose him any moral,
physical or psychological danger. In the
considered opinion of this Court, both the
Courts' below have manifestly erred in
denying bail to the revisionist.

9. In the result, this revision
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 29.04.2019 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Hapur in
Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2019 and the
order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the
Juvenile Justice Board, Hapur in Case
Crime No. 283 of 2018, under Sections
307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. are hereby set
aside and reversed. The bail application
of the revisionist stands allowed.

10. Let the revisionist, Golu
through his natural guardian/ mother
Smt. Renu w/o Suraj, be released on bail
in Case Crime No. 283 of 2018, under
Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 P.S.
Gadhamukhteshwar, District Hapur upon
his mother furnishing a personal bond
with two solvent sureties of his relatives
each in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the Juvenile Justice Board, Hapur
subject to the following conditions:

(i) that the natural guardian/
mother Smt. Renu will 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 allowed to be exposed
to any moral, physical or psychological
danger and further that the father will
ensure that the juvenile will not repeat
the offence.

(ii) The revisionist and his
mother, Smt. Renu will report to the
District Probation Officer on the first
8 All. Subham Kumar Malik Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
653
Monday
of
every
calendar
month
commencing with the first Monday of July,
2020 and if during any calendar month the
first Monday falls on a holiday, then on the
following working day.

(iii)
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,
Hapur on such periodical basis as the
Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

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

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

(vi)
The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of such computerized copy of
the order from the official website of High
Court Allahabad and shall make a
declaration of such verification in writing.
----------
(2020)08ILR A653
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.06.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4498 of 2019

Subham Kumar Malik ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, Sri Dharmendra Dhar Dubey
Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Mukhtar Alam

Civil Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 -
Section 12 - Case of Revisionist-at par
with adult co-accused-who has been
granted
bail-nothing
in
the
social
investigation report-if released on bailwould
defeat
the
end
of
justice-
Revision allowed.

Held, the conclusion to the contrary drawn by
the two courts' below are based on a
perverse inference drawn from the material
on record. It must also be remarked that the
learned Special Judge while writing the
impugned order has not carefully considered
the Social Investigation Report or referred to
it. He has not also referred to the other
material on record in order to test the case of
the juvenile on the parameters prescribed
under the proviso to sub Section (1) of
Section 12 of the Act. A reading of his order
shows that it carries more of paraphrasing of
the
statutory
requirements
than
a
consideration of the revisionist's case with
reference to the facts and evidence on record.
The revisionist is entitled to a more careful
consideration of his case by the Appellate
Court under Section 101 of the Act. The order
of the Juvenile Justice Board is also flawed for
the reason that it is quite reasonless. It
records abrupt conclusions without indicating
the basis to reach them. In the opinion of this
Court, therefore, the impugned orders are
manifestly illegal and cannot be sustained.
13. (para12)

Criminal Revision allowed. (E-9)

Cases referred:-

1.Dharmendra (Juvenile) Vs. St. of U.P. &
ors., 2018 (7) ADJ 864,

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. Shubham Kumar Malik, a
juvenile in conflict with the law, has
approached this Court under Section 102