# Jai Krishna (Minor) Revisionist v. State Of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 5 ILRA 227
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-05-04
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2051 of 2020
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jai-krishna-minor-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47061
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Juvenile Justice Act,2015 -Section 12-Bail
application of juvenile rejected-revision-
revisionist declared juvenile -16 years 3
months and 2 days as per high school
certificate-section
12
makes
bail
mandatory-can be rejected only to serve
best interest of the juvenile-if releasing on
bail will have adverse effect-possibility of
associated with known criminals or moral,
physical or psychological danger to him-or
his release would defeat ends of justice.

Criminal revision allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Jai Krishna (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
227
pendemic Covid-19 and it requires a liberal
approach to be adopted while considering
the bail plea of a juvenile.

16. In view of above, I find that the
impugned orders are not sustainable and
they are liable to be set aside.

17. The criminal revision is therefore
allowed. The impugned orders rejecting the
bail application are set aside.

18. The juvenile, namely Mohammad
Najmuddin (Minor) be released on bail and
he be given in the custody of the mother
guardian namely Smt. Majda Begum on her
filing a personal bond and two sureties of the
like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned with undertaking that the guardian
mother Smt. Majda Begum shall keep the
juvenile away from unsocial and criminal
association and will look after his education
and health, keeping his mental and social
status. She will also give an undertaking that
on being so released on bail, the juvenile will
not however indulge in commission of any
crime and she will ensure his presence during
trial before the court whenever so required by
court.

19. Office is directed to transmit the
certified copy of this order to the court
concerned for information and its necessary
compliance. A computerized copy of the
order may also be obtained and produced
before the court concerned for compliance.
----------
(2021)05ILR A227
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.05.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2051 of 2020

Jai Krishna (Minor) ...Revisionist
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Ms. Maimoona Fatima

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

Juvenile Justice Act,2015 -Section 12-Bail
application of juvenile rejected-revision-
revisionist declared juvenile -16 years 3
months and 2 days as per high school
certificate-section
12
makes
bail
mandatory-can be rejected only to serve
best interest of the juvenile-if releasing on
bail will have adverse effect-possibility of
associated with known criminals or moral,
physical or psychological danger to him-or
his release would defeat ends of justice.

Criminal revision allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy Vs Raju, 2014 (86)
ACC 637

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. Ms. Maimoona Fatima, learned
counsel for the revisionist and learned
AGA are virtually connected.

2. The opposite party no.2 has been
served with notice, but none has appeared
on his behalf.

3. Heard.
228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. This revision has been filed against
the judgment and order dated 23.9.2020
passed by Additional District and Sessions
Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act-3,
Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No.58 of
2020, which was preferred against the order
dated 26.8.2020 passed by the Juvenile
Justice Board, Gorakhpur rejecting the bail
application of the revisionist and the appeal
filed against the same has been also
dismissed by the Additional District and
Sessions Judge by the impugned order.

5. The FIR was registered against the
revisionist, Jai Kishan (Minor) and others in
respect of incident dated 3.4.2020 for the
offence under Sections 147, 323, 376, 452,
504, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Crime
No. 94 of 2020, PS - Sahjanwa, District
Gorakhpur with the allegation that on
3.4.2020 at about 01:00 AM in the midnight,
the revisionist on the point of a knife
committed rape on the victim, who was a
minor and he was caught red handed by the
family members at the time of occurrence.
Police was informed. So many persons of the
locality and the family members of the
revisionist also reached there, committed
maarpeet with the family members of the
victim and threatened them with dire
consequences.

6. The admitted fact is that the
revisionist was declared juvenile by order
dated 28.7.2020 and he was found to be aged
about 16 years 3 months and 2 days as per his
high school certificate. Bail application was
given before the Juvenile Justice Board and
the same was rejected vide impugned order
against which an appeal was filed and the
appeal was also rejected by the impugned
order dated 23.9.2020.

7. Both the orders have been
challenged in this revision on the basis that
both the courts below passed the impugned
orders against the law and facts on record
and the impugned orders are perverse
vitiated and contrary to law and fact,
therefore, the impugned orders are not
sustainable under law and are liable to be
set aside and the revisionist is entitled to be
released on bail.

8. Submission of the learned counsel
for the revisionist is that the victim was
examined under Section 164 CrPC by the
Magistrate in which she denied the fact of
rape and stated that a false FIR was
registered because of old enmity by her
family members. It has been also submitted
that no knife was recovered which was
alleged to have been used by the revisionist
and by causing threat, he committed rape
on the victim. It has been also submitted
that the legal provision provided under
Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act was
not interpreted in the right prospective
which requires justice to be done to the
juvenile. It has also been submitted that
there was nothing adverse against the
juvenile in the report of the Probationary
Officer and there was no legal ground to
deny bail to the revisionist.

9. Learned AGA has opposed the bail
application and has submitted that after
investigation charge sheet has already been
filed. It has been also submitted that both
the courts below have rightly considered
the bail application and come to the
conclusion that the bail application has got
no force and was liable to be rejected.
There is no illegality nor there is any
jurisdictional error in the impugned orders.

10. The noticeable fact in this case is
that both revisionist and victim were of
comparable age and there was not much
difference in their age. Another aspect is
5 All. Jai Krishna (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
229
that no injury was found in the medical of
the victim. It was also required to be
considered that when the victim was
examined under Section 164 CrPC, she
denied the fact of rape by the revisionist. It
appears that this fact was not given any
weight by both the courts below, which is
an apparent illegality in the impugned
orders.

11. It is pertinent to mention that
provision has been made under Section 12
of the Juvenile Justice Act that when any
juvenile who is accused of a bailable or a
non-bailable offence, is arrested or detained
or is brought before a board then
irrespective of the accusation he shall be
released on bail except when

1.
there
appear
reasonable
grounds for believing that the release is
likely to bring him into association with
any known criminals or

2. that it will expose him to
moral, physical or psychological danger, or

3. that his release would defeat
the ends of justice.

12. It has been held by the Supreme
court in Dr. Subramaniam Swamy vs
Raju, 2014 (86) ACC 637 that a juvenile
has to be released on bail unless the court
has a reasonable ground to believe that his
release will bring him into association of
some known criminal, or will expose him
to moral, physical or psychological danger
or his release would defeat the ends of
justice.

13. Section 15 of the Amending Act
only provides for transfer of a juvenile to
the Children Court for trial as an adult.
Where the child has attained the age of
16 years and has been alleged to have
committed heinous offence, the JJ Board is
required to conduct a preliminary inquiry
with regard to his mental and physical
capacity to commit offence, ability to
understand the consequence of the offence
and the circumstances in which the offence
was committed considering his physical,
psychological
and
mental
status
in
commission of crime. Section 18(3) of the
Act provides that after making the
assessment under section 15, the JJ Board
comes to a conclusion that there is a need
for trial of the child as an adult, the Board
may pass an order for the transfer of the
trial of the case to the Children Court.

14. It is pertinent to mention here that
Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act has not been
amended so far as the parameters and
yardstick for granting bail to the juvenile is
concerned. Therefore, while rejecting the
bail application of such juvenile, it cannot
be the criteria that the alleged offence is of
serious and heinous nature. The order must
show that the grant of bail to the juvenileaccused is against his interest as there is
possibility of his being associated with
known criminals, or there is some short of
moral, physical or psychological danger to
him or there is likelihood of end of justice
being defeated. All these conditions have
been incorporated in law in order to ensure
justice to the juvenile.

15. Thus it is clear that even though
Juvenile Justice Act has been amended and
the juvenile above 16 years in age, can be
tried as an adult by the Children Court,
there is no amendment in respect of
considerations which is taken into account
for the bail of juvenile. Section 12 of the
230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Juvenile Justice Act makes the bail of the
juvenile mandatory and the grounds on the
basis of which his bail application can be
rejected is also to serve the best interest of
the juvenile himself. Therefore, the bail of
juvenile can only be rejected if the court
comes to a conclusion that the release on
bail will adversely affect the interest of
juvenile.

16. In this case, there appears to be
nothing on record showing that there is
moral, physical or psychological danger to
the juvenile, if he is released, nor there was
any possibility that he will come in the
company of known criminal nor there is any
reason to conclude that his release on bail
will defeat the ends of justice. In a case like
this where the victim has herself denied the
allegation of rape in her statement given to
the magistrate under section 164 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, the rejection of
bail
by
the
courts
below
is
highly
inappropriate and the rejection order suffers
from material irregularity and illegality.
Therefore, the court is of the firm view that
both the courts below have not exercised their
jurisdiction vested in them keeping in view
the object of the Act. There is one more
consideration necessitating this conclusion.
At present, there is wide spread of pendemic
Covid-19 and it requires a liberal approach to
be adopted while considering the bail plea of
a juvenile.

17. In view of above, I find that the
impugned orders are not sustainable and
they are liable to be set aside.

18. The criminal revision is therefore
allowed. The impugned orders rejecting the
bail application are set aside.

19. The juvenile, namely Jai Kishan
(Minor) be released on bail and he be
given in the custody of the mother guardian
namely Smt. Yamuna Devi on her filing a
personal bond and two sureties of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned
with
undertaking
that
the
guardian mother Smt. Yamuna Devi shall
keep the juvenile away from unsocial and
criminal association and will look after his
education and health, keeping his mental
and social status. She will also give an
undertaking that on being so released on
bail, the juvenile will not however indulge
in commission of any crime and she will
ensure his presence during trial before the
court whenever so required by court.

20. Office is directed to transmit the
certified copy of this order to the court
concerned for information and its necessary
compliance. A computerized copy of the
order may also be obtained and produced
before the court concerned for compliance.
the court concerned for compliance.
----------
(2021)05ILR A230
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.

Misc. Single No. 16086 of 2020
And
Misc. Single No. 18232 of 2020
And
Misc. Single No. 17570 of 2020
And
Misc. Single No. 3496 of 2021
And
Misc. Single No. 2662 of 2021

Haripal ....Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: