# Juvenile - X Legal Guardian/ Vinod Pandey Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1302
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1323 of 2022
- **Bench:** Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/juvenile-x-legal-guardian-vinod-pandey-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50172
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 302, 396 & 412 - The
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 - Section 102
- Revision - Section 12 - Bail to a person
who is apparently a child alleged to be in
conflict with law - gravity or seriousness
of the offence should not be taken as an
obstacle or hindrance to refuse the bail
to delinquent juvenile - Juvenile Justice
Act is a beneficial legislation intended
for reform of the juvenile/child in
conflict with the law - justice should be
done not only to the accused, but also to
the accuser - 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.(Para - 6,7,12)
5 All. Juvenile - X Legal Guardian/ Vinod Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1303
(B) Words and Phrases - 'ends of justice' -
cannot stand in a vacuum - 'Principle of
Best Interest' - ends of justice phrase is
crucial in balancing the demands of both
sides - Courts must consider factors such
as the nature of the crime, methodology
applied, mental state, involvement, and
available evidence when evaluating bail
entitlement
-

phrase
may
include
seemingly
irrelevant
or
unimportant
factors for the purposes of Section 12(1)
of the Juvenile Justice Act.(Para -13)

Juvenile found complicit in a frightful crime -
involving a Branch Manager's life for looting
public money - Juvenile above 16 years old -
considered borderline adult - If released on bail
-
likely
fall
into
the
same
hands
and
surroundings that contributed to their criminal
behavior - Juvenile Justice Board and appellate
Court dismissed bail applications - hence
revision. (Para - 15,16)

HELD:-
Juvenile
requires
professional
supervision and guidance to develop healthy
habits. Juvenile left studies and is not interested
in academic pursuits, suggesting a need for a
positive direction in their life. Appellate Court
and Board found the revisionist not entitled to
bail, stating effective protection and supervision
is needed. Case is not fit for bail.(Para -
17,18)

Revision dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8- इस प्रकार न्यायालय को सबूतों की प्रकृभत
और भकसी िी िोस भवरोधािाष सामग्री की अनुपभस्थभत
एवं उपलब्ध सामग्री से छेड़छाड़ की संिावना न होने के
तथ्य को देखते हुए अभियुक्त को जमानत पर मुक्त कर
भदया जाना चाभहए।

7. bl izdkj mijksDr vfHker ds
en~nsutj vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds rdksZ ds
ifjizs{; esa i=koyh ij miyC/k lkjoku rF;ksa ,oa
ifjfLFkfr;ksa dk lexz :i ls voyksdu djus ds
ckn] lcwrksa dh izd`fr vkSj fdlh Hkh Bksl
fojks/kkRed lkexzh dh vuqifLFkfr ,oa miyC/k
lkexzh ls NsM+NkM+ dh laHkkouk u gksus ds rF;
dks ns[krs gq, esjh jk; esa vkosnd dks tekur ij
eqDr djus dk mi;qDr vk/kkj gSA

8. vr% okn ds xq.k nks"k ij fcuk dksbZ
fVIi.kh fd, gq, vkosnd dks mijksDr of.kZr
vijk/k esa lacaf/kr U;k;ky; dh lUrqf"V ij
O;fDrxr ca/k&i= ,oa vf/kd /kujkf'k ds nks
LFkkuh; izfrHkw izLrqr djus ij fuEufyf[kr 'krksZ
ds lkFk tekur ij NksM+ fn;k tk;A

1& vkosnd foospuk ;k ijh{k.k ds
nkSjku vfHk;kstu lk{;ksa ds lkFk NsM+NkM+ ugha
djsxkA

2& vkosnd vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa o
ihfM+r@f'kdk;rdrkZ
dks
Mjk;sxk@/kedk;sxk
ughaA

3& vkosnd U;k;ky; ds vkns'kksa dk
ikyu djsxk] og ijh{k.k ds nkSjku fcuk dksbZ
vuko';d LFkxu fy, fu;r frfFk ij U;k;ky;
esa mifLFkr gksxk rFkk ijh{k.k esa bZekunkjh ls
lg;ksx djsxkA

4& vkosnd tekur ij fjgk gksus ds
ckn tekur dh Lora=rk dk nq:i;ksx ugha djsxk
vkSj fdlh Hkh vijkf/kd xfrfof/k esa fyIr ugha
gksxk u dksbZ vijkf/kd d`R; djsxkA

5& vkosnd izR;{k ;k vizR;{k :i ls
ekeys ds rF;ksa ls ifjfpr fdlh Hkh O;fDr ;k
iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa dks dksbZ izyksHku ;k /kedh ugha
nsxk u gh muls dksbZ ok;nk djsxk] ftlds dkj.k
mUgsa U;k;ky; esa rF;ksa dks mtkxj djus ls fojr
jguk iM+sA

9. mijksDr 'krksZ esa ls fdlh ds mYya?ku
ds ekeys esa] ijh{k.k U;k;ky; vkosnd dh
tekur fu;ekuqlkj jn~n djus dks Lora= gSA
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1302
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1323 of 2022

Juvenile - X Legal Guardian/ Vinod Pandey
 ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Chanchal Kumar Rai, Sri Mangala
Prasad Rai (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Manvendra Nath Singh, Sri Nar
Singh Narayan Verma

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 302, 396 & 412 - The
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 - Section 102
- Revision - Section 12 - Bail to a person
who is apparently a child alleged to be in
conflict with law - gravity or seriousness
of the offence should not be taken as an
obstacle or hindrance to refuse the bail
to delinquent juvenile - Juvenile Justice
Act is a beneficial legislation intended
for reform of the juvenile/child in
conflict with the law - justice should be
done not only to the accused, but also to
the accuser - 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.(Para - 6,7,12)
5 All. Juvenile - X Legal Guardian/ Vinod Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1303
(B) Words and Phrases - 'ends of justice' -
cannot stand in a vacuum - 'Principle of
Best Interest' - ends of justice phrase is
crucial in balancing the demands of both
sides - Courts must consider factors such
as the nature of the crime, methodology
applied, mental state, involvement, and
available evidence when evaluating bail
entitlement
-

phrase
may
include
seemingly
irrelevant
or
unimportant
factors for the purposes of Section 12(1)
of the Juvenile Justice Act.(Para -13)

Juvenile found complicit in a frightful crime -
involving a Branch Manager's life for looting
public money - Juvenile above 16 years old -
considered borderline adult - If released on bail
-
likely
fall
into
the
same
hands
and
surroundings that contributed to their criminal
behavior - Juvenile Justice Board and appellate
Court dismissed bail applications - hence
revision. (Para - 15,16)

HELD:-
Juvenile
requires
professional
supervision and guidance to develop healthy
habits. Juvenile left studies and is not interested
in academic pursuits, suggesting a need for a
positive direction in their life. Appellate Court
and Board found the revisionist not entitled to
bail, stating effective protection and supervision
is needed. Case is not fit for bail.(Para -
17,18)

Revision dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Amit Kumar Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Revision
No. 2732 of 2010

2. Kanchan Sonkar Vs St. of U.P., Criminal
Revision No. 1266 of 2020

3. Amit Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Revision No.
1852 of 2015

4. Prakash Vs St. of Raj., 2006 Cri.L.J. 1373.

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

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

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

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Chanchal Kumar Rai,
learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri O.P.
Mishra, learned AGA for the State as well
as Sri Manvendra Nath Singh, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 2 and
perused the record.

2. This criminal revision under
Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act,
2015, has been filed on behalf of the minor
'X' through his natural guardian/father
Vinod Pandey S/o Late Basant Pandey R/o
Village-Khutahan
Namjad
Karmaita
(Babhnauli), Police Station Shadiyabad,
District Ghazipur with the prayer to admit
the minor on bail alongwith the prayer to
set aside the order dated 16.11.2021 passed
by the Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi and
order dated 06.01.2022 passed by the
Additional
District
and
Sessions
Judge/Special
Judge,
POCSO
Act,
Varanasi in Misc Case No. 331/2021
arising out of Case Crime No. 188 of 2021
under Section 302, 396, 412 IPC, Police
Station-Phoolpur,
District-Varanasi
by
which the criminal appeal was rejected.

3. As per the version of the FIR
lodged by Smt. Bindu Devi wife of
deceased Phoolchand Ram, who was
holding the post of the Branch Manager of
Punjab National Bank, Branch-Karkhiyaon,
Phoolpur, Varanasi at the time of his death;
after attending his Office, he was returning
to his house on 09.06.2021 at about 6 pm;
he had last conversation with his wife at
about 6 pm, however, some unknown
1304 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
persons kidnapped and murdered him. On
the basis of the FIR Case Crime No.
0188/2021 under Sections 364 and 302 IPC
was registered and investigated upon.
During the investigation, after collection of
some evidence and recording of statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses,
the present revisionist, minor son of Vinod
was arrested and a total of Rs. 12,50,500/-
out of the looted amount of Rs. 47 lakhs,
bearing the seal of Punjab National Bank
and some other incriminating articles like
the I-Card of Phoolchand Ram, the
deceased and firearms were recovered.
Three of the other arrested co-accused
persons namely, Alok Rai, Arun Mishra
and Rahul Tiwari, in their confessional
statements before the Police, also named
the revisionist, a juvenile.

4. During the proceedings before the
Juvenile Justice Board, the revisionist was
found to be of the age of 17 years, 8
months and 14 days on the date of the
incident and was declared juvenile vide
order dated 17.09.2021. A bail application
through guardian was moved before the
Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi, but the
same was rejected. Thereafter, a criminal
appeal no. 123/2021 was preferred by the
real father and guardian of the juvenile and
the same was also dismissed.

5. Aggrieved by the above orders, this
criminal revision has been preferred to set
aside the same and to admit the juvenile to
bail.

6. 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. 2732 of 2010 (Amit Kumar vs. State
of U.P.) decided on 14.09.2010, Criminal
Revision No. 1266 of 2020 (Kanchan
Sonkar vs. State of U.P.) decided on
01.12.2020, Criminal Revision No. 1852
of 2015 (Amit vs. State of U.P.) decided
on 16.03.2016 and held by the Apex Court
in Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006
Cri.L.J. 1373.

7. 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 exist. 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.

8. 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.
5 All. Juvenile - X Legal Guardian/ Vinod Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1305

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

10. In Om Prakash vs. State of
Rajasthan and another; (2012) 5 SCC
201, 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, 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.

11. 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.

12. 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."
1306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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. 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."

13. 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.

14. Following facts cannot go in
oblivion that a Branch Manager of Punjab
National Bank, Varanasi was fatally
assaulted and murdered when he was
carrying about Rs. 47 lakhs from one
Branch to another as part of his official
duties, the investigating officer recorded
the statement of cashier of the Bank, the
driver of the vehicle and some other
witnesses and it was found that he was shot
at and killed and one of the bag containing
cash
amount,
was
looted.
During
investigation, the present revisionist was
arrested and cash of Rs. 12,50,500/-
bearing seal of Punjab National Bank,
Mariahu, I-card belonging to the deceased
and a firearm was also recovered.
5 All. Rajesh Gond Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1307

15. In nutshell, it can be inferred that
the juvenile was found to have complicity
in this frightful crime where the life of a
Branch Manager was taken for looting of
public money. The juvenile was found
above 16 years i.e., 17 years 8 months and
14 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.

16. It clearly appears that the Juvenile
Justice Board as well as the appellate
Court,
while
dismissing
the
bail
applications, definitely had in mind the fact
that in case the juvenile is released to his
family, any chance of him turning into a
better and healthy person shall be stalled
and that he shall certainly fall of in the
same kind of things from where, perhaps he
is needed to be rescued for his own welfare.
It is worth notice that though the 'Principle
of Best Interest', described in Section 3 of
the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 has been
specifically brought in the provisions of the
Act but broadly it is covered in the phrase
'ends of justice' too.

17. In my view, the aim and object of
the Juvenile Justice Act cannot be achieved
if crimes committed by the juveniles are
not viewed from the angle of their own
welfare and concerns of the society at large
are not addressed. The social investigation
report, though, has been prepared on a
printed format rather mechanically may not
be very useful. Nevertheless, there are
some indicators therein which imply that
the juvenile needed effective supervision
and indulgence of a professional counselor
so that from here onwards he grows into an
adult with healthy habits. The social
investigation report indicates that he left his
studies in in-between and is not interested
in any academic pursuit. This is enough to
give a clue to the Court that his mind needs
to be diverted towards positive direction.

18. 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.

19. The revision is, accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1307
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1856 of 2022

Rajesh Gond ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Arvind Singh Sengar

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
Revision , Section 319 - Power to proceed
against other persons appearing to be