# Juvenile 'X' Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 152
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No.9297 of 2007
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Pachori
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/juvenile-x-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46561
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - The Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015- Sections
12 & 13(1)(ii) - The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 -
Rule 2(xvii) - The intention of the legislature is to
grant bail to the juvenile and it can be declined only if
any of the three contingencies specified under Section
12(1) of the Act of 2015 is available but the gravity of
offence has no relevance in declining the bail to the
juvenile. (Para 16)

Moreover, the Social Information Report (SIR)
submitted by the Probation Officer did not disclose
any negative remarks about him or his family and in
absence of any material or evidence of reasonable
grounds, the conclusion that his release would defeat
the ends of justice is not appreciated by this Court.
(Para 27)

Revision Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order must indicate application of mind. If the
Magistrate takes cognizance, he proceeds to
follow the procedure provided in Chapter XV of
Cr P.C. The first question stands answered
thus."

43. Yet a Division Bench of this Court in
Criminal Misc. Application No.9297 of 2007
decided on 18.9.2007. A Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Sukhbali Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh reported in 2007 (59) ACC 739 in para
22 has observed as under:-

"22. Applications under Section 156(3)
Cr. P.C. are now coming in torrents. Provisions
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be used
sparingly. They should not be used unless there
is something unusual and extra ordinary like
miscarriage of justice, which warrants a
direction to the Police to register a case. Such
applications should not be allowed because the
law provides them with an alternative remedy of
filing a complaint, therefore, recourse should
not normally be permitted for availing the
provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C."

A judicial notice has been taken by
this Court in the case of Sukhbali (Supra) that
applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are
now coming in torrent and thus exercise of the
powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be
used sparingly and not in routine manner.

44.

Looking
into
the
facts
and
circumstances of the present case in relation to
the statutory provisions as contained under
Cr.P.C. as well as the scope under Section
397/401 of the Cr.P.C. this Court does not find
any infirmity in the order dated 27.8.2021
passed by passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act,
Bareilly in Criminal Case No.1117 of 2021,
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station
Fatehganj West, District Bareilly (Smt. Rajni
Vs. Jameel Ahamad and others), hence the
present criminal revision is wholly misconceived
and is liable to be dismissed.

45. No other points raised by counsel for
the applicant-revisionist.

46. Accordingly, criminal revision is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)11ILR A152
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2318 of 2021

Juvenile 'X' ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Madan Singh

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

A. Criminal Law - The Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015- Sections
12 & 13(1)(ii) - The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 -
Rule 2(xvii) - The intention of the legislature is to
grant bail to the juvenile and it can be declined only if
any of the three contingencies specified under Section
12(1) of the Act of 2015 is available but the gravity of
offence has no relevance in declining the bail to the
juvenile. (Para 16)

Moreover, the Social Information Report (SIR)
submitted by the Probation Officer did not disclose
any negative remarks about him or his family and in
absence of any material or evidence of reasonable
grounds, the conclusion that his release would defeat
the ends of justice is not appreciated by this Court.
(Para 27)

Revision Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Appashaeb Vs St. of Mah. (2007) 9 SCC 721
11 All. Juvenile 'X' Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
153
2. Manoj Singh Vs St. of Raj.2004 (2) RCC 995
(followed)

3. Lal Chand Vs St. of Raj. 2006 (1) RCC 167
(followed)

4. Prakash Vs Sta. of Raj. 2006 (2) RCR (Crl.) 530
(followed)

5. Udalbhan Singh @ Bablu Vs St. of Raj. 2005 (4)
Crimes 649 (followed)

6. Shiv Kumar @ Sadhu Vs St. of U.P. (68) ACC 61
(LB) (followed)

7. Maroof Vs St. of U.P. 2015 (6) ADJ 203 (followed)

8. Nand Kishore (in JC) Vs State (2006) 4 RCR (Cri.)
754

9. Manmohan Singh Vs St. of Punj. PLR (2004) 136
P&H 497

10. Gurbaksh Singh Sibla Vs St. of Punj. (1980) 2 SCC
565

11. U.O.I. Vs Shiv Shankar Kesari (2007) 7 SCC 798

12. Shilpa Mittal Vs NCT Delhi (2020) 2 SCC 787
(followed)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Madan Singh, learned counsel
for the revisionist, Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi,
learned A.G.A for the State. Despite of service
of notice upon opposite party no. 2, no one has
appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

2. The Present Criminal Revision has been
preferred under Section 102 of The Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 (hereinafter referred to as "JJ Act, 2015")
against the judgment dated 9.3.2021 passed by
Additional
Sessions
Judge/Special
Judge,
POCSO Act, Moradabad, in Criminal Appeal
No. 10 of 2021 (arising out of Case No. 21 of
2020), whereby the learned appellate court has
rejected the appeal and affirmed the order dated
22.1.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board,
Moradabad. The Juvenile Justice Board has also
rejected the bail application of juvenile 'X'
which
has
been
filed
by
his
natural
guardian/father, under Section 12 of "JJ Act,
2015", in case Crime No. 162 of 2020 under
Sections 302, 34 of The Indian Penal Code (in
short "IPC") Police Station Bhojpur, District
Moradabad by the order dated 22.1.2021.

3. Being aggrieved of the judgment and
order dated 9.3.2021 and 22.1.2021 passed by
the Appellate Court as well as the Juvenile
Justice Board, the juvenile 'X' through his father
has preferred the instant revision before this
Court.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist
vehemently submitted that the juvenile was
below 18 years of age at the time of the incident.
The Juvenile Justice Board has declared the
juvenile 'X' was 9 years 6 months and 10 days
old at the time of incident vide order dated
14.12.2020 and no proceeding is pending against
the order dated 14.12.2020. It has been further
submitted that juvenile 'X' is not named in the
first information report and has been falsely
implicated during the investigation without any
material evidence. After four days of the
incident, the juvenile has been implicated and
apprehended by the police on 24.5.2020 on the
basis of suspicion. It has been further submitted
that there is no evidence to show that if in case
the juvenile is released on bail, then his 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, no such
finding was recorded as to how he will come in
contact with known criminals and how he will
be exposed to moral, physical, or psychological
danger, or that his release would defeat the ends
of justice. The juvenile is in protective custody
in an observation home since 24.5.2020.
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that juvenile 'X' has not
committed any offence and has no criminal
antecedent to his credit except the present case
and is not a previous convict nor is associated in
any kind of unsocial or criminal activities. There
is no report regarding any previous criminal
antecedents of the family of the revisionist and
also there is no chance of the juvenile reindulgence to bring him into association with
known criminals. The natural guardian/father of
the revisionist giving an undertaking that if
juvenile is released on bail, he will keep him in
his custody and look after him properly and
assure on behalf of the juvenile that he is ready
to cooperate with the process of law and shall
faithfully make the juvenile available before the
court whenever required and is also ready to
accept all the conditions which the Court may
deem fit to impose upon him.

6. It has been further submitted that the
Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate
Court
have
not
appreciated
the
Social
Information Report of the Probation Officer in
its right perspective and passed the impugned
judgment and order in a cursory manner without
considering the position of law and have
declined bail to the revisionist. The bare perusal
of the impugned orders demonstrates that the
same has been passed on flimsy grounds, which
have occasioned a gross miscarriage of justice.
The judgment and order passed by the learned
court below are illegal, contrary to law, and
based on the erroneous assumption of facts and
law.

7. Per contra; learned A.G.A. defended
the impugned judgment and order passed by the
Appellate Court as well as the Juvenile Justice
Board and contended that the juvenile has
committed the offence in a pre-planned manner.
The ghastly crime was committed by the
juvenile. There is every possibility that if the
juvenile is released, he will come in contact with
the known criminals and will get exposed to
moral,
physical
or
psychological
danger.
Considering the gravity of offence, the present
revision is liable to be dismissed.

8. I have carefully considered the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the
revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the material on record.

9. The learned Juvenile Justice Board
declared juvenile 'X' as juvenile vide order dated
14.12.2020 after conducting an enquiry and held
that juvenile 'X' was 9 years 6 months 10 days
old at the time of the incident on the basis of
school leaving certificate wherein date of birth
of juvenile 'X' is 11.11.2010.

10. The bail application under Section 12
of "JJ Act, 2015" has been rejected by the
Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 2.1.2021
observing that there appears a reasonable ground
for believing that the guardian of the juvenile
has no effective control over juvenile 'X' and
there is a possibility of re-occurrence of the
offence after his release, which is likely to bring
him into association with other known criminals.
Furthermore, the juvenile was indulged in this
activity due to lack of discipline. Learned
appellate court has also affirmed the order
passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and
observed that juvenile 'X' has committed the
heinous offence along with other co-accused.
However, the appellate court cited the case laws
wherein, it has been observed that the gravity of
offence is not a relevant consideration for
declining the bail of the juvenile. The appellate
court without considering the social information
report of the Probation Officer in the right
perspective as well as without returning any
finding on the three exceptions, declined the bail
to juvenile 'X' and rejected the appeal.

11. To examine the validity of the
impugned order, it is useful to note the relevant
11 All. Juvenile 'X' Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
155
provisions of the Act as well as the case laws
relating to the subject.

12. Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 reads as
under:

"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 subsection (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police
station, such officer shall cause the person to be
kept only in an observation home in such
manner as may be prescribed until the person
can brought before a Board.

(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 fulfill 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)

13. It is a settled position of law that the
use of the word 'shall' in sub-section (1) of
Section 12 of "JJ Act, 2015" is of great
significance. The use of the word 'shall' raises a
presumption that the particular provision is
imperative, but this prima facie inference may
be rebutted by other considerations such as the
object and scope of the enactment and the
consequences flowing from such construction.
The word 'shall' has been construed as ordinarily
mandatory, but it is sometimes not so interpreted
if the context or intention otherwise demands.

14. Provisions of Section 12 of "JJ Act,
2015" manifest that ordinarily, the Juvenile
Justice Board is under obligation to release the
juvenile on bail with or without surety. The
juvenile shall not be so released in certain
circumstances as the latter part of the section
also uses the word 'shall' imposing certain
mandatory conditions prohibiting the release of
the juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board. If
there appear reasonable grounds for believing;
(a) that the release is likely to bring him into
association with any known criminal; (b) that
release is likely to expose him to moral,
physical, or psychological danger and (c) that
release of juvenile in conflict of law would
defeat the ends of justice.

15. The term 'known criminal' has not been
defined in "the Juvenile Justice Act" or Rules
framed thereunder. It is a well-settled rule of
interpretation that in the absence of any statutory
definition of any term used in any particular
statute the same must be assigned meaning as in
commonly understood in the context of such
statute as held by Supreme Court in Appasaheb
156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 9 SCC 721 in
para 11 as under: (SCC p. 726 para 11)

"11......It is well settled principle of
interpretation of statute that if the Act is passed
with reference to a particular trade, business or
transaction
and
words
are
used
which
everybody conversant with that trade, business
or transaction knows or understand to have a
particular meaning in it, then the words are to
be construed as having that particular meaning.
[See: Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd.,
(1996) 10 SCC 413: AIR 1996 SC 3509 and
Chemical and Fibers of India v. Union of India,
(1997) 2 SCC 664: AIR 1997 SC 558]..."

16. From a bare reading of the provisions
of Section 12 of "JJ Act, 2015", it appears that
the intention of the legislature is to grant bail to
the juvenile irrespective of the nature or gravity
of the offence alleged to have been committed
by the juvenile, and bail can be declined only in
such cases where there are reasonable grounds to
believe that the release is likely to bring the
juvenile into an association of any known
criminal or expose him to moral, physical, or
psychological danger, or that his release would
defeat the ends of justice. The gravity of offence
is not a relevant consideration for declining the
bail to the juvenile. A juvenile can be denied the
concession of bail if any of the three
contingencies specified under Section 12(1) of
"JJ Act, 2015" is available. A similar view has
been taken in cases of Manoj Singh v. State of
Rajasthan, 2004 (2) RCC 995, Lal Chand v.
State of Rajasthan, 2006 (1) RCC 167,
Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, 2006 (2) RCR
(Cri.) 530, Udaibhan Singh @ Bablu Singh v.
State of Rajasthan, 2005 (4) Crimes 649, Shiv
Kumar @ Sadhu v. State of U.P., 2010 (68)
ACC 616 (LB), Maroof v. State of U.P., [2015
(6) ADJ 203].

17. In Nand Kishore (in JC) v. State
(2006) 4 RCR (Cri.) 754, Delhi High Court,
while considering the first condition of proviso
of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, observed
that "as regards the first exception, before it can
be invoked to deny bail to a juvenile there must
be a reasonable ground for believing that his
release is likely to bring him into association
with any known criminal. The expression known
criminal is not without significance when the
liberty of a juvenile is sought to be curtailed by
employing the exception, the exception must be
construed
strictly.
Therefore,
before
this
exception is invoked, the prosecution must
identify the 'known criminal', and then the court
must have reasonable grounds to believe that the
juvenile, if released would associate with this
'known criminal'. It cannot be generally
observed that the release of the juvenile would
bring him into association with criminals
without identifying the criminals and without
returning a prima facie finding with regard to the
nexus between the juvenile and such criminal..."

18. Similar view has been taken in
Manmohan Singh v. State of Punjab, PLR
(2004) 136 P & H 497 wherein, it was observed
as under:

"7....The
reasonable
grounds
for
believing that his release is likely to bring 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,
should
be
based
upon
some
material/evidence available on the record. It is
not a matter of subjective satisfaction but while
declining bail to the juvenile on the said ground,
there must be objective assessment of the
reasonable grounds that the release of the
juvenile is likely to bring him in association with
any known criminal or expose him to moral,
physical or psychological danger or that his
release would defeat the ends of justice...

8. In Sanjay Kumar's case (supra) it
has been held by the Allahabad High Court that
every juvenile whatever offence he is charged
11 All. Juvenile 'X' Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
157
with, shall be released on bail but he may,
however, be refused bail if there appears
reasonable ground for believing that the release
is likely to bring him into association with the
any known criminal or expose him to moral,
physical or psychological danger or that his
release would defeat the ends of justice and that
the existence of such ground should not be mere
guess work of court but it should be
substantiated by some evidence on record."

19. Section 26 of the IPC defined the
expression "Reason to believe" means a person
is said to have "reason to believe" a thing, if he
has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not
otherwise. In view of Section 26 of IPC, if there
is sufficient cause to believe, reason to believe
exists. The expression "reason to believe"
excludes a mere suspicion. The word 'believe' is
very much a stronger word than 'suspect'.

20. The Constitution Bench of Apex court
in Gurbaksh Singh Sibia v. State of Punjab,
(1980) 2 SCC 565, while interpreting the
expression "reason to believe" observed as
under: (SCC p. 589 para 35)

"35. Section 438(1) of the Code lays
down a condition which has to be satisfied
before anticipatory bail can be granted. The
application must show that he has "reason to
believe" that he may be arrested for a non
bailable offence. The use of the expression
"reason to believe" shows that the belief that
the applicant may be so arrested must be
founded on reasonable grounds. Mere 'fear' is
not 'belief or which reason it is not enough for
the applicant to show that he has some sort of
a vague apprehension that some one is going
to make an accusation against him, in
pursuance of which he may be arrested. The
grounds on which the belief of the applicant is
based that he may be arrested for a nonbailable offence, must be capable of being
examined by the court objectively, because it
is then alone that the court can determine
whether the applicant has reason to believe
that he may be so arrested....."

21. The Supreme Court again in the case
of Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Kesari,
(2007) 7 SCC 798, interpreted the expression
"reasonable ground to believe" as under: (SCC
p. 801, 802 paras 7, 8, 9 and 10)

"7. The expression used in Section
37(1)(b)(ii) is "reasonable grounds". The
expression means something more than prima
facie
grounds.
It
connotes
substantial
probable causes for believing that the accused
is not guilty of the offence charged and this
reasonable belief contemplated in turn points
to existence of such facts and circumstances
as are sufficient in themselves to justify
recording of satisfaction that the accused is
not guilty of the offence charged.

8. The word "reasonable" has in law
the prima faice meaning of reasonable in
regard to those circumstances of which the
actor, called on to act reasonably, knows or
ought to know. It is difficult to give an exact
definition of word "reasonable".

7. ...In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary,
4th Edn., p. 2258 states that it would be
unreasonable to expect an exact definition of the
word
'reasonable'.
Reason
varies
in
its
conclusions according to the idiosyncrasy of the
individual, and the times and circumstances in
which he thinks. The reasoning which built up
the old scholastic logic sounds now like the
jingling of a child's toy."

[See Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v.
Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar1, and Gujarat Water
Supply and Severage Board v. Unique Erectors
(Gujarat) (P) Ltd.2

9. "9. ...It is often said that 'an attempt
to give a specific meaning to the word
"reasonable" is trying to count what is not
number and measure what is not space.' The
author of Words and Phrases (Permanent Edn.)
158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has quoted from Nice & Schreiber, In re3 to give
a plausible meaning for the said word. He says

'the expression "reasonable" is a
relative term, and the facts of the particular
controversy must be considered before the
question as to what constitutes reasonable can
be determined'

It is not meant to be expedient or
convenient but certainly something more than
that"

10. The word "reasonable" signifies
"in accordance with reason". In the ultimate
analysis it is a question of fact, whether a
particular act is reasonable or not depends on
the circumstances in a given situation. (See
Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Kamla
Mills Ltd.4)

22. Section 13(1)(ii) of "JJ Act, 2015"
provides that the Probation Officer shall submit a
social investigation report within two weeks from
when a child is apprehended or brought, to the
Board containing information regarding the
antecedents and family background of the child
and other material circumstances likely to be of
assistance to the Board for making the inquiry. The
"social investigation report" which has been
defined in Rule 2(xvii) of The Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules,
2016, means the report of a child containing
detailed
information
pertaining
to
the
circumstances of the child, the situation of the
child on economic, social, psycho-social and other
relevant factors, and the recommendation thereon.
This report becomes important for the inquiry to be
done by the Board while passing such orders in
relation to such a child as it deems fit under
Sections 17 and 18 of this Act. The purpose behind
this provision is to enable the Juvenile Justice
Board to get a glimpse of the social circumstances
of the child before any order regarding bail or of
any other nature is passed.

23. 'Form-6' of The Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016,
contains a detailed proforma of the social
investigation report. The report has three parts;
the first part requires the Probation Officer to
give the data or information regarding the close
relatives in the family, delinquency records of
the family, social and economic status, ethical
code of the family, attitude towards religion,
relationship amongst the family members, the
relationship with the parents, living conditions
etc. Thereafter, the report requires the Probation
Officer to provide the child's history regarding
his mental condition, physical condition, habits,
interests, personality traits, neighbourhood,
neighbours' report, and school, employment, if
any, friends, the child being subject to any form
of abuse, circumstances of apprehension of the
child, mental condition of the child. The most
important part of the report is the third part i.e.
the result of inquiry where the Probation Officer
is required to inform the Board about the
emotional
factors,
physical
condition,
intelligence, social and economic factors,
suggestive cause of the problems, analysis of the
case including reasons/contributing factors for
the offence, opinion of experts consulted and
recommendation regarding rehabilitation by the
Probation Officer/Child Welfare Officer. It is
incumbent upon the Juvenile Justice Board to
take into consideration the social investigation
report and make an objective assessment of the
reasonable grounds for rejecting the bail
application of the juvenile.

24. Section 3 of "JJ Act, 2015" provides
that
the
Central
Government,
the
State
Government, the Board, and other agencies, as
the case may be, while implementing the
provisions of the Act, shall be guided by the
fundamental principles of care and protection of
children. Some of the principles are as under:

(i)
Principle
of
presumption
of
innocence: Any child shall be presumed to be an
innocent of any mala fide or criminal intent up
to the age of eighteen years.
11 All. Juvenile 'X' Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
159

(ii) Principle of dignity and worth: All
human being shall be treated with equal dignity
and rights.

(iii) Principle of best interest: All
decisions regarding the child shall be based on
the primary consideration that they are in the
best interest of the child and to help the child to
develop full potential.

(iv) Principle of family responsibility:
The primary responsibility of care, nurture and
protection of the child shall be that of the
biological family or adoptive or foster parents,
as the case may be.

(v)
Principle
of
non-stigmatising
semantics: Adversarial or accusatory words are
not to be used in the process pertaining to a
child.

(vi) Principle of right to privacy and
confidentiality: Every child shall have a right to
protection of his privacy and confidentiality, by
all means and through out the judicial process.

25. After noticing the position of law, now I
revert back to the facts of the present case, as per
the Social Information Report (SIR), which is
paper book page no. 72 demonstrates that the
house of the juvenile is situated near a Primary
School. The juvenile aged about 9 years has passed
Class IV, and has one elder and one younger
brother having ages of 12 years and 7 years and are
studying in Class V and Class I, respectively. The
parents of the juvenile are illiterate and relations
among the family members are cordial; parents
and grand parents of the juvenile have no criminal
antecedent. Father does labour work and resides
along with his family in a constructed house
having three rooms. The juvenile has an interest in
reading books and playing cricket. The SIR further
noted that discipline in the house of the juvenile is
normal/moderate. Further, the Probation Officer
has noted as "उक्त प्रकरण मे अपचारी ककशोर हम
उम्र समूह के प्रभाव से अपराध की ओर अग्रसर
होना प्रतीत होता है किसके कारण अपचाररकता
कवककसत हुई" (In the above case, the delinquent
juvenile appears to be committing a crime due to
the influence of children of his age group, due to
which delinquency developed.)

26. First Information Report of the present
case has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2
on 21.5.2020 at 20:32 hrs., under Section 302 IPC
against the unknown persons. According to the
FIR, on 21.5.2020 at about 4:00 P.M., his son
Faizan about 6 years old had gone towards an
abandoned brick kiln for playing where unknown
person murdered his son by cutting his neck, the
dead body of his son is lying at the brick kiln.
During the investigation, the role of catching hold
of the deceased has been assigned to the juvenile
'X' by a chance witness (elder brother of the
deceased aged about 18 years), who was not able
to speak but he narrated the incident by indications
after four days of the incident. This witness had
not disclosed the incident to anyone since he was
afraid.

27. In view of the above foregoing
discussion, I am not satisfied with the reasoning
and conclusion arrived by the Appellate Court as
well as the Juvenile Justice Board in the
impugned judgment and order. The Juvenile
Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court
have not properly appreciated the mandatory
provisions of Section 12 of "JJ Act, 2015" as
well as other provisions in relation to juvenile
'X' and declined the bail merely on the basis of
unfounded apprehension. In the absence of any
material or evidence of reasonable grounds, it
cannot be said that his release would defeat the
ends of justice and have failed to give reasons on
three contingencies for declining the bail to
juvenile 'X'. The findings recorded by the
Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate
Court are based on the heinousness of the
offence, therefore, the order dated 21.1.2021
passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and
judgment
dated
9.3.2021
passed
by
the
Appellate Court are not sustainable. Hence, are
set aside and the present revision is allowed.
160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

28. Let juvenile 'X' through his natural
guardian/father be released on bail in Case
Crime No. 162 of 2020 under Sections 302, 34
of I.P.C. Police Station- Bhojpur District-
Moradabad furnishes a personal bond on his
father (Sipte Hasan) with two sureties of his
relatives each in the like amount to the
satisfaction
of
Juvenile
Justice
Board,
Moradabad, subject to the following conditions:

(i) Natural guardian/father will furnish
an undertaking that upon release on bail juvenile
'X' will not be permitted to go 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) Natural guardian/father will further
furnish an undertaking to the effect that the
juvenile will pursue his study at the appropriate
level which he would be encouraged to do
besides other constructive activities and not
allowed to waste his time in unproductive and
excessive recreational pursuits.

(iii)
Juvenile
and
natural
guardian/father will report to the Probation
Officer on the first Monday of every calendar
month commencing with the first Monday of
December 2021, and if during any calendar
month the first Monday falls on a holiday, then
on the following working day.

(iv) The Probation Officer will keep a
strict vigil on the activities of the juvenile and
regularly draw up his social investigation report
that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice
Board, Moradabad, on such a periodical basis as
the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

29. Before parting with the judgment, it is
necessary to point out that the identity of the
juvenile in the present matter has been disclosed
in the impugned judgment and order which
violates the right to privacy and confidentiality
of the juvenile and against the law laid down by
the Supreme Court in Shilpa Mittal v. NCT
Delhi, (2020) 2 SCC 787 wherein, it was held
that the identity of the juvenile shall not be
disclosed.

30. The present revision has been filed by
Juvenile 'X' through his natural guardian/father.
The memo of parties discloses the name of the
juvenile. The Registry is directed to conceal the
names of juvenile from the cause list as well as
the record of this case so that the names and
identities are not disclosed as directed by the
Supreme Court in Shilpa Mittal (supra).

31. Let a copy of the instant judgment shall
be transmitted by the Registry of this Court to all
the District Judges within one week for
circulation to all the Juvenile Justice Boards and
Children's Courts, constituted under the "JJ Act,
2015". The office is further directed to enter the
judgment in compliance register maintained for
the purpose of the Court.
----------
(2021)11ILR A160
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.

Election Petition No. 4 of 2017

Jay Veer Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Hari Om Yadav ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jaiveer Singh(In Person), Sri K.R. Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Shivam Yadav, Sri Shaurav Yadav, Sri Aditya
Yadav

A. Civil Law-The Representation of People Act,
1951-Sections 81, 123(1)- to declare the
election of the respondent as Member of