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

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 706
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1175 of 2022
- **Bench:** Narendra Kumar Johari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/juvenile-x-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47779
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protetion of Children ) Act, 2015-Section
12(1)-informant alleges-accused penetrated his
finger-minor got bleeding-victim-minor-accused
declared minor-bail rejected on ground of
heinous crime-Juvenile accused is a student of
class IX-juvenile need strict discipline and
rehabilitation -no criminal history-reform is
possible-no ground to reject bail.
Bail granted. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

706 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. For all the reasons recorded above
and considering the above-mentioned case
laws, I am of the considered opinion 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 certified to
the Court concerned.

23. The Court/concerned Board is
directed to expedite the hearing and
conclude the same at the earliest without
getting
influenced
by
any
of
the
observations made in this order.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 706
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1175 of 2022

Juvenile X ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Civil Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protetion of Children ) Act, 2015-Section
12(1)-informant alleges-accused penetrated his
finger-minor got bleeding-victim-minor-accused
declared minor-bail rejected on ground of
heinous crime-Juvenile accused is a student of
class IX-juvenile need strict discipline and
rehabilitation -no criminal history-reform is
possible-no ground to reject bail.
Bail granted. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sanjay Chaurasia Vs St. of U.P. 2006 Cr.L.J.
2957

2. A. Juvenile Vs St. of Orissa, 2009 Cr.L.J., 2002

3. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta Vs St. of
Mah. 2011 (72) ACC 699

4. Rahul Patel Vs St. of U.P. & anr., [2018 (1) JIC
357 (All)]
(Delivered by Hon'ble Narendra Kumar
Johari, J.)

1. The instant Revision has been filed
on behalf of Revisionist-Juvenile through
his father/natural guardian against the order
dated 19.01.2022 passed by Special Judge
(POCSO Act)/Additional Session Judge,
Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2021
(Juvenile through natural guardian father
Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated
17.09.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice
Board, Fatehpur in Case No.111/2020,
arising out of Case Crime No.489/2020,
under Sections 376-A, B, 504, 506 I.P.C.
and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police
Station- Bindki, District -Fatehpur.

2. The record indicates that notice has
sufficiently been served on opposite party
No.2 but none is present on behalf of the
opposite party No.2.

3. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.

4. The facts of the case in brief are
that on 18.11.2020 when the minor
daughter of informant had gone for grazing
the goats the revisionist/juvenile penetrated
his finger in her vagina which caused pain
10 All. Juvenile X Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
707
to the victim consequently she started
weeping and crying. Hearing the alarm of
victim, the witness Khushi reached on the
spot, then after that the revisionist by
extending threat for life, ran away from the
spot. The private part of his daughter was
bleeding. The F.I.R. of the occurrence was
lodged on 18.11.2020 at about 23.05 hours
against the sole revisionist.

5. The revisionist approached to the
Juvenile Justice Board stating that he was
innocent. he had been implicated falsely in
the case. He had no criminal history and he
was not involved in any criminal activities
also. Vide order dated 04.09.2021, the
Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur declared
him juvenile, his age on the date of
occurrence was found 15 years 04 months
and 03 days. Accordingly, the revisionist
had been declared juvenile in conflict with
law. Subsequently, an application for bail
was moved by the revisionist before the
Juvenile Justice Board, which was rejected
by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order
dated 17.09.2021 on the ground that the
Juvenile had the offence which is heinous
in nature. If the juvenile is released on bail,
then in that case his release will defeat the
ends of justice. Apart from that his release
will also affect the rights of victim
adversely.
His
moral,
physical
and
psychological development will also be
affected adversely. Against the above
order, the juvenile filed the criminal appeal
No. 53 of 2021, before the Special Judge
(POCSO Act)/Additional Session Judge,
Fatehpur which too was dismissed by the
appellate court vide order dated 19.01.2022
on the ground that if the appellant/juvenile
is released on bail his psychological,
physical and moral development will be
affected adversely and the object of law
shall also be defeated. Against both the
rejection orders, present criminal revision
has
been
filed
through
natural
guardian/father of juvenile.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has submitted that revisionist has falsely
been implicated in the case, he has no
previous criminal history. He is
in
observation home since 19.11.2020. In the
medical examination report, the hymen of
victim was found intact. Only redness was
found in the area of introitus with oedema
which can be caused by victim herself. The
medical examination has been done within
24 hours of alleged offence wherein no sign
of bleeding has been found. Accordingly,
the medical evidence is not supporting the
F.I.R. version.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has further stated that the ingredients of
proviso of Section 12 (1) of Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015, which provides the ground for
rejection of bail, is not applicable in the
present case. If the juvenile is released on
bail, the father of revisionist undertakes
that he will supervise him and will provide
better
atmosphere
for
his
over
all
development and educate him. He further
assures that his son will not misuse the
liberty of bail. He will also take care for
moral,
physical
and
psychological
development of his son.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has
contended that considering the nature of
offence, the revision petition is liable to be
dismissed. The revisionist has committed a
heinous offence. If the revisionist is
released on bail, the object of law as well
as justice shall defeat.

9. Before dealing with the matter, it
would be appropriate to take into account
Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and
708 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which is
reproduced as under:-

"12. Bail to a person who is
apparently a child alleged to be in conflict
with law.

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 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 be 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."

10. According to the provisions of
Section
12
(1),
the
wording
used
"notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure or in any other
law for the time being in force" is nonobstante clause which has been used by
legislation,
therefore,
the
delinquent
juvenile
may
be
released
on
bail
irrespective of the provisions of Code of
Criminal Procedure. The exception of such
release has been mentioned in proviso of
Section 12 (1) i.e. if there appears
reasonable grounds for believing that
release is likely to bring the juvenile into
association of known criminals or expose
the said juvenile to moral, physical or
psychological danger or the person's release
would defeat ends of justice.

11. The Act, namely, Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 being benevolent and social reforms
oriented legislation, should be given full
effect by all concerned whenever matters
relating to juvenile comes for consideration
before them. Therefore, for rejection of his
bail application, there must be any material
or evidence reflecting reasonable ground to
believe that delinquent juvenile, if released
on bail is likely to fall into association with
known criminal persons or such liberty
may expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger, or his release would
10 All. Juvenile X Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
709
defeat the ends of justice. In absence of
such reasonable grounds the bail of
juvenile should not be refused. In Sanjay
Chaurasia Vs. State of U.P. 2006 Cr.L.J.
2957 it has been observed that :-

"10. In case of the refusal of the
bail,
some
reasonable
grounds
for
believing above-mentioned exceptions must
be brought before the Courts concerned by
the prosecution but in the present case, no
such ground for believing any of the abovementioned exceptions has been brought by
the prosecution before the Juvenile Justice
Board and Appellate Court. The Appellate
Court dismissed the appeal only on the
presumption that due to commission of this
offence, the father and other relatives of
other kidnapped boy had developed enmity
with the revisionist, that is why in case of
his release, the physical and mental life of
the revisionist will be in danger and his
release will defeat the ends of justice but
substantial to this presumption no material
has been brought before the Appellate
Court and the same has not been discussed
and only on the basis of the presumption,
Juvenile Justice Board has refused the Bail
of the revisionist which is in the present
case is unjustified and against the spirit of
the Act. It appears that the impugned order
dated 27.06.2005 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Meerut and order dated
28.05.2005 passed by the Juvenile Justice
Board are illegal and set aside."

The reason to believe means there
should be sufficient cause to believe such
thing but not otherwise it excludes a mere
suspicion. In other words, we may say that
the reason means something more than the
prima facie ground.

12. Learned Magistrate by its order
dated 17.09.2021 has rejected the bail of
revisionist mentioning that the offence
committed by juvenile is heinous and nonbailable in nature.

13. In the case of A. Juvenile Vs.
State of Orissa, 2009 Cr.L.J., 2002, it has
been held that :

"(6) A close reading of the
aforementioned provision shows that it has
been mandated upon the Court to release a
person who is apparently a juvenile on bail
with or without surety, howsoever heinous
the crime may be and whatever the legal or
other restrictions containing in the Cr.P.C.
or any other law may be. The only
restriction
is
that
if
there
appears
reasonable grounds for believing that his
release is likely to bring him into
association with any moral, physical or
psychological danger or his release would
defeat the ends of justice, he shall not be so
released."

14. In the light of facts, circumstances
and law laid down and fundamental legal
principle regarding the juvenile justice, the
court has to examine that whether the
release of juvenile will expose him to
moral, physical and psychological danger
and his release on bail would affect the
ends of justice.

15. The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been
enacted by the Parliament, is a reformative
and benevolent in nature. Section 3 of the
Act, 2015, provides general principles to be
followed in administration of the Act.

"Section 3. General Principles to
be followed in administration of Act.- The
Central
Government,
the
State
Governments,
the
Board,
and
other
agencies, as the case may be, while
710 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
implementing the provisions of this Act
shall
be
guided
by
the
following
fundamental principles, namely:--

(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.

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

(iii) Principle of participation :
Every child shall have a right to be heard
and to participate in all processes and
decisions affecting his interest and the
child's
views
shall
be
taken
into
consideration with due regard to the age
and maturity of the child.

(iv) 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.

(v)
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.

(vi) Principle of safety: All
measures shall be taken to ensure that the
child is safe and is not subjected to any
harm, abuse or maltreatment while in
contact with the care and protection
system, and thereafter.

(vii)
Positive
measures:
All
resources are to be mobilised including
those of family and community, for
promoting
the
well-being,
facilitating
development of identity and providing an
inclusive and enabling environment, to
reduce vulnerabilities of children and the
need for intervention under this Act.

(viii)
Principle
of
nonstigmatising semantics : Adversarial or
accusatory words are not to be used in the
processes pertaining to a child.

(ix) Principle of non-waiver of
rights: No waiver of any of the right of the
child is permissible or valid, whether
sought by the child or person acting on
behalf of the child, or a Board or a
Committee and any non-exercise of a
fundamental right shall not amount to
waiver.

(x) Principle of equality and nondiscrimination:
There
shall
be
no
discrimination against a child on any
grounds including sex, caste, ethnicity,
place of birth, disability and equality of
access, opportunity and treatment shall be
provided to every child. General principles
to be followed in administration of Act.

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

(xii)
Principle
of
institutionalisation as a measure of last
resort: A child shall be placed in
institutional care as a step of last resort
after making a reasonable inquiry.

(xiii) Principle of repatriation
and restoration: Every child in the juvenile
justice system shall have the right to be reunited with his family at the earliest and to
be restored to the same socio-economic
10 All. Juvenile X Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
711
and cultural status that he was in, before
coming under the purview of this Act,
unless such restoration and repatriation is
not in his best interest.

(xiv) Principle of fresh start : All
past records of any child under the Juvenile
Justice system should be erased except in
special circumstances.

(xv)
Principle
of
diversion:
Measures for dealing with children in
conflict with law without resorting to
judicial proceedings shall be promoted
unless it is in the best interest of the child
or the society as a whole.

(xvi) Principles of natural justice:
Basic procedural standards of fairness
shall be adhered to, including the right to a
fair hearing, rule against bias and the right
to review, by all persons or bodies, acting
in a judicial capacity under this Act.

16. In the case of Sunil Kumar
Sambhudayal
Gupta
Vs.
State
of
Maharastra 2011 (72) ACC 699, Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that :-

"Every accused is presumed to be
innocent unless his guilt is proved. The
presumption of innocence is a human right.
Subject to the statutory exceptions, the said
principle forms the basis of criminal
jurisprudence in India. The nature of the
offence, its seriousness and gravity has to
be taken into consideration.

The Appellate Court should bear
in mind the presumption of innocence of the
accused, and further, that the Trial Court's
acquittal bolsters the presumption of his
innocence. Interference with the decision of
the Trail Court in a casual or cavalier
manner where the other view is possible
should be avoided, unless there are good
reasons for such interference."

17. In the case of Rahul Patel Vs.
State of U.P. & another, [2018 (1) JIC 357
(All)], this Court has held as under :-

"8. The Apex Court in a catena of
judgements has constantly held that gravity
of the offence is not a ground to deny bail
to a juvenile accused. Unless the conduct of
the accused is such to indicate that in all
likelihood, after being released on bail, the
juvenile-accused will indulge into more
crimes. If there are no imminent chances of
his repeating the crime, bail to a juvenile
should not be ordinarily refused."

18. During enquiry in proceedings
before Juvenile Justice Board, District
Probation Officer, Fatehpur has mentioned
that father of the juvenile is a labourer.
Juvenile is a student of Class IX. The
economical condition of his family is weak
and social status is normal. The juvenile
needs strict discipline and rehabilitation by
keeping him away from bad company also.

19. No criminal history of either
revisionist or his father has been shown. No
material to establish reason to believe has
been brought on record. The report of
District Probation Officer further indicates
that a strict discipline may keep him away
from bad company and his reform is
possible. The father of revisionist also
undertakes that he will take care for moral,
physical and psychological development of
his son.

20. Keeping in view the fact of the
case, arguments advanced by learned
counsel
for
the
parties
and
legal
provisions/law laid down by Apex Court
and by this Court, it can be concluded that
in present revision no ground is available
712 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on record to reject the application of
juvenile for bail. Hence, the revision
deserves to be allowed. Both the courts
below could not appreciate the legal
position while rejecting bail application of
delinquent juvenile. The revision stands
allowed.
Consequently,
the
impugned
orders dated 19.01.2022, passed by Special
Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Session
Judge, Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No. 53
of 2021 (Juvenile through guardian father
Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated
17.09.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice
Board, Fatehpur in Case No.111/2020,
arising out of Case Crime No.489/2020,
under Sections 376-A, B, 504, 506 I.P.C.
and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police
Station - Bindki, District -Fatehpur are set
aside.

21. It is directed that the revisionist
shall be released on bail executing personal
bond by his natural guardian/father with two
solvent sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile
Justice Board, Fatehpur with the stipulation
that on subsequent dates of hearing, he shall
produce the delinquent juvenile before the
Board during the pendency of the case. His
guardian/father
shall
also
submit
an
undertaking before the Board that, (i) he shall
keep proper control and look after the
juvenile, (ii) He will keep away him from the
company of known criminals and will do all
of his endeavour to improve his better future,
(iii) he will take care for moral, physical and
psychological development of his son, (iv)
the revisionist or his father shall not tamper
with the evidence or cause threat to the
witnesses. The revisionist through his
guardian shall also file undertaking to the
effect that he shall not seek an adjournment
on the date fixed for evidence when the
witnesses are present before the Juvenile
Justice Board.

22. 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,
Fatehpur on such periodical basis as the
Juvenile Justice Board determines.

23. In case of default, the Board
would be competent to cancel the bail of
revisionist after giving opportunity of
hearing to him.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 712
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAJENDRA KUMAR, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2179 of 2022

Mahendra Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Vikas Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Sudhir Dixit, Sri Utkarsh Dixit

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973
-
Section
319Application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. by informantallowed-Applicant summoned to face trialP.W.1
-eye
witness-informant-St.ment-in
chief and cross-examination recorded-his
testimony falls in realm of legal evidencewhile considering Application u/s 319 Cr.P.C.-
court
relied
upon
St.ment-in-chief-no
illegality-no material on the basis of which
PW-1's testimony be discarded at this stagecomplicity of revisionist in crime is clearly
established.

Revision dismissed. (E-9)