# Juvenile 'Xyz' Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 6 ILRA 259
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-06-14
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 835 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/juvenile-xyz-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52147
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law-The Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 -
Sections 12 & 18(1) (g)- Revision against the
order rejecting bail application of the revisionist-
Gravity of the offence not relevant consideration
for refusing bail to the juvenile-Maximum period
for which a juvenile can be incarcerated in
whatever form of detention is three years-Bail
for a juvenile who is under the age of 16 years
is a matter of course and it is only in the event
that his case falls under one or the other
disentitling categories mentioned in the proviso
to sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act that
bail may be refused.
Nothing said against the juvenile appearing from
the Social Investigation Report that may show
him to be a desperado or misfit-Courts below
have held the juvenile disentitled to bail on
account of his case falling under each of the
three exceptions enumerated in the proviso to
sub section (1) of Section 12, for which no
reason has been indicated- Both the courts
below have also overlooked the statement of
260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164
CrPC and further the courts below have also not
considered the radiological age of the victim as
per the medical report.
Bail application allowed. (E-15)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

6 All. Juvenile 'Xyz' Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
259
degree-holders from consideration for the
lower post of Junior Engineers."

17. The decision of their Lordships
in Puneet Sharma, like some others
referred to in paragraph No.13 of the
report, has to be understood for the
principle it lays down. It turns on the terms
of the rules involved in Puneet Sharma, and
that particular rule is about 64% of the
posts of Assistant Engineers being filled by
promotion from amongst Junior Engineers,
where there was a quota of 5% for Junior
Engineers, who already had a degree in
Engineering before they entered service. It
is on this particular feature in the rules that
the holding in Puneet Sharma turns, as
would be evident from paragraph No.34 of
the report; and of course, the concluding
remarks in paragraph No.39 of the report.

18. In the present case, hardly any
rule has been brought to the notice of this
Court, that may lend itself to a particular
construction, where the holder of a degree
in Engineering may be held eligible to
apply to the post of a Junior Engineer. To
the contrary, terms of the advertisement
make the qualification of a Diploma in
Electrical/ Civil Engineering, essential to
maintain one's candidature for the post.
About all the argument based on inherent
superiority of a degree in Engineering, the
answer of the Full Bench to the issue
clinches it.

19. In our considered opinion,
therefore, there is no merit in this writ
petition.

20. Before parting with the matter,
this Court must place on record our
appreciation for the valuable assistance
rendered by Mr. Avneesh Tripathi, learned
Amicus Curiae.
21. In the result, this writ petition
fails and is dismissed.

22. There shall be no order as to
costs.
----------
(2024) 6 ILRA 259
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Revision No. 835 of 2023

Juvenile 'Xyz' ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Mohammad Alishah Faruqi, Mohd. Suhail

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law-The Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 -
Sections 12 & 18(1) (g)- Revision against the
order rejecting bail application of the revisionist-
Gravity of the offence not relevant consideration
for refusing bail to the juvenile-Maximum period
for which a juvenile can be incarcerated in
whatever form of detention is three years-Bail
for a juvenile who is under the age of 16 years
is a matter of course and it is only in the event
that his case falls under one or the other
disentitling categories mentioned in the proviso
to sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act that
bail may be refused.
Nothing said against the juvenile appearing from
the Social Investigation Report that may show
him to be a desperado or misfit-Courts below
have held the juvenile disentitled to bail on
account of his case falling under each of the
three exceptions enumerated in the proviso to
sub section (1) of Section 12, for which no
reason has been indicated- Both the courts
below have also overlooked the statement of
260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164
CrPC and further the courts below have also not
considered the radiological age of the victim as
per the medical report.
Bail application allowed. (E-15)
List of Cases cited:

1. Kamal Vs St. of Har., 2004 (13) SCC 526

2. Takht Singh Vs St. of M. P., 2001 (10) SCC
463

3. Shiv Kumar @ Sadhu Vs. St. of U.P. 2010
(68) ACC 616(LB)

4. Japani Sahoo Vs Chandra Sekhar Mohanty

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1 .This revision is directed against the
judgment and order dated 01.06.2023
passed
by
Additional
Sessions
Judge/learned Special Judge (POCSO) Act
No. 1, Lucknow passed in Criminal Appeal
No. 259/2022: Shiva Vs. State of U.P.),
whereby the criminal appeal filed on behalf
of the revisionist has been dismissed and
for quashing of the order dated 22.08.2022
passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Mohan
Road, Lucknow, in Misc. Case No. 159 of
2022, arising out of the Case Crime no. 613
of 2021, Under Sections 376 DB, 323, 504,
506 IPC & 5m/6 POCSO Act of Police
Station Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow,
whereby the Juvenile Justice Board has
rejected
the bail
application
of
the
revisionist.

2. In spite of time being granted to
opposite party No.2 and after service of
notice
neither
anyone
has
put
in
appearance nor any counter affidavit has
been filed on behalf of opposite party
No.2. It appears that opposite party No.2
is not interested to file counter affidavit or
to contest the case.

3. Learned A.G.A. has filed counter
affidavit, in reply thereto learned counsel
for the revisionist has filed the rejoinder
affidavit denying the averments made in
the counter affidavit.

4. Heard Sri Mohammad Alishah
Faruqi, learned counsel for the revisionist
and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned
A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the
record.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that the revisionist is innocent and
he has been falsely implicated in the
present case.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that as per the prosecution
case the complainant, Sudama, a resident of
Gram
Ganshkherha,
Police
Station
Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, filed a complaint
on 30.12.2021 stating therein that sister-inlaw of his son Sonu, namely, aged 11 years,
daughter of the late Babu Lal, resident of
Koyali ka Purwa, Police Station Nagram,
Lucknow, who lives at his house, on
30.12.2021 at about 5.00 p.m. went to the
forest to collect wood. At that time, two
boys from the village, Akash and Shiva,
caught her and committed rape and
assaulted her. When the girl started
screaming, they beat her and threatened to
kill her before fleeing the scene. When the
girl returned home, she narrated the entire
incident, and the complainant dial at 112 to
call the police.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that the revisionist is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in
the present case.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that the medical of the
6 All. Juvenile 'Xyz' Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
261
victim was done on 31.12.2021 in which
there was no external injuries/no internal
injuries were found on the person of the
alleged victim.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that against the order dated
30.03.2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice
Board, Lucknow, by which the revisionist
was
declared
juvenile,
neither
the
informant nor the State Government has
preferred any appeal, revision before any
court of law.

10. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that the revisionist is
juvenile and there is no apprehension of
reasoned ground for believing that the
release of the revisionist is likely to bring
him in association with any known
criminals or expose him to mental, physical
or psychological danger or his release
would defeat the ends of justice. He further
submits that except this the revisionist has
no previous criminal history. The father of
the revisionist is giving his undertaking that
after release of the revisionist on bail, he
will keep him under his custody and look
after him properly. Further, the revisionist
undertakes that he will not tamper the
evidence and he will always cooperate the
trial proceedings. There was no report
regarding any previous antecedents of
family or background of the revisionist.
There is no chance of revisionist's reindulgence to bring him into association
with known criminals.

11. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that it is not in dispute that
the revisionist is a juvenile as he has
already been declared juvenile by Juvenile
Justice Board, Lucknow vide order dated
30.03.2022. The revisionist was a juvenile
aged 13 years 02 months on the date of
occurrence. He is in jail since 02.01.2022
in connection with the present crime and
has completed substantial period of the
sentence out of the maximum three years
institutional incarceration permissible for a
juvenile, under Section 18(1)(g) of the Act.

12. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further
submits
that
thereafter
the
revisionist applied for bail before the
Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow upon
which a report from the District Probation
Officer was called for. The bail application
was rejected vide order dated 22.08.2022,
being aggrieved, the revisionist preferred
an appeal under Section 101 of the Act,
which was also dismissed vide order dated
01.06.2023. Hence the present criminal
revision has been filed before this Hon'ble
Court mainly on the following amongst
other grounds:

(i) That the bail application of the
revisionist was rejected by the court below
in a very cursory and arbitrary manner.

(ii) That the revisionist, who is
juvenile, is wholly innocent and has been
falsely implicated by the first informant in
the present case.

(iii) That the courts below have
not appreciated the report of the District
Probation Officer in its right perspective.

(iv) That the impugned judgment
and orders passed by the learned courts
below are apparently illegal, contrary to
law and based on erroneous assumption of
facts and law.

(v) That there was absolutely no
material on record to hold that the release
of the Juvenile would likely to bring him
into association with any known criminal
or expose him to moral, physical or
262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
psychological danger or his release would
defeat the ends of justice, yet the courts
below have illegally, arbitrary and on
surmises refused the bail of juvenile.

(vi) That the courts have erred in
law in not considering the true import of
Section 12 of the Act, 2015 and thus, the
impugned orders passed by the courts
below suffer from manifest error of law
apparent on the face of record.

(vii) That the courts below have
acted quite illegally and with material
irregularity in not properly considering the
case of juvenile in proper and correct
perspective which makes the impugned
orders passed by the courts below non est
and bad in law.

(viii) That bare perusal of the
impugned orders demonstrate that the same
have been passed on flimsy grounds which
have occasioned gross miscarriage of
justice.

13. Several other submissions in
order to demonstrate the falsity of the
allegations made against the revisionist
have also been placed forth before the
Court.
The
circumstances
which,
according to the counsel, led to the false
implication of the accused have also been
touched upon at length. It has been
assured on behalf of the revisionist that
he is ready to cooperate with the process
of law and shall faithfully make himself
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. It has also been
pointed out that in the wake of heavy
pendency of cases in the Court, there is
no likelihood of any early conclusion of
trial.

14. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has further argued that the revisionist has
already undergone substantial period of
imprisonment/institutional
incarceration
and has placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex
Court judgment in the case of Kamal Vs.
State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 and
submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was
pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the
judgment as under :-

"2. This is a case in which the
appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of
the India Penal Code and sentenced to
imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that so
far
the
appellant
has
undergone
imprisonment for about 2 years and four
months. The High Court declined to grant
bail pending disposal of the appeal before
it. We are of the view that the bail should
have been granted by the High Court,
especially having regard to the fact that the
appellant has already served a substantial
period
of
the
sentence.
In
the
circumstances, we direct that the bail be
granted to the appellant on conditions as
may be imposed by the District and
Sessions Judge, Faridabad."

15. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has also placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex
Court judgment in the case of Takht Singh
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10)
SCC 463, and submitted that the Hon'ble
Apex Court was pleased to observe in
paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under:-

"2. The appellants have been
convicted under Section 302/149, Indian
Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge
and have been sentenced to imprisonment
for life. Against the said conviction and
sentence their appeal to the High Court is
pending. Before the High Court application
for suspension of sentence and bail was
6 All. Juvenile 'Xyz' Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
263
filed but the High Court rejected that
prayer
indicating
therein
that
the
applicants can renew their prayer for bail
after one year. After the expiry of one year
the second application was filed but the
same has been rejected by the impugned
order. It is submitted that the appellants
are already in jail for over 3 years and 3
months. There is no possibility of early
hearing of the appeal in the High Court. In
the aforesaid circumstances the applicants
be released on bail to the satisfaction of the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

16. Learned AGA has opposed the
revisionist's case with the submission that
the release of the revisionist on bail would
bring him into association of some known
criminals, besides, exposing him to moral,
physical and psychological danger. It is
submitted that his release would defeat the
ends of justice, considering that he is
involved in a heinous offence.

17.

This
Court
has
carefully
considered the rival submissions of the
parties and perused the impugned orders.
The juvenile is clearly below 16 years of
age and does not fall into that special
category of a juvenile between the age of
16 and 18 years whose case may be viewed
differently, in case, they are found to be of
a
mature
mind
and
persons
well
understanding the consequences of their
actions. The provisions relating to bail for a
juvenile are carried in Section 12 of the
Act, which reads as under:

"(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-incharge 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 fulfil 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."

18. This Court in the case of Shiv
Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P.
264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2010 (68) ACC 616(LB) was pleased to
observe that the gravity of the offence is
not relevant consideration for refusing
grant of bail to the juvenile.

19. In the present case it is also taken
note of by this Court that the revisionist has
by now done
substantial
period
of
institutional incarceration. The maximum
period for which a juvenile can be
incarcerated in whatever form of detention,
is three years, going by the provisions of
Section 18(1)(g) of the Act. Both the courts
below have passed the impugned judgment
and orders in cursory manner without
placing
due
reliance
on
the
report
submitted by the District Probation Officer
as well as facts and circumstances of the
case. This Court, thus, finds that the
impugned orders cannot be sustained and
are liable to be set aside and reversed.

20. A perusal of the said provision
show that bail for a juvenile, particularly,
one who is under the age of 16 years, is a
matter of course and it is only in the event
that his case falls under one or the other
disentitling categories mentioned in the
proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of
the Act that bail may be refused. The merits
of the case against a juvenile acquire some
relevance under the last clause of the
proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 12 that
speaks about the ends of justice being
defeated.
The
other
two
disentitling
categories are quite independent and have
to be evaluated with reference to the
circumstances of the juvenile. Those
circumstances are to be gathered from the
Social Investigation Report, the police
report and in whatever other manner
relevant facts enter the record.

21. What is of prime importance in
this case is that the juvenile, who is a
young boy, less than the age of 16 years,
has no criminal history. There is nothing
said against the juvenile, appearing from
the Social Investigation Report that may
show him to be a desperado or misfit in the
society. The two courts below have held
the juvenile disentitled to bail on account of
his case falling under each of the three
exceptions enumerated in the proviso to
sub section (1) of Section 12, for which no
reason has been indicated. That finding, in
both the orders impugned, is based on an
ipse dixit, in one case of the judge and in
the other of the Board. Even if it be
assumed that the offence was committed in
the manner alleged, it would be rather
strained logic to hold that release of the
juvenile on bail would lead to the ends of
justice being defeated. Both the courts
below have also overlooked the statement
of the victim recorded under Section 161
and 164 CrPC and further the courts below
have also not considered the radiological
age of the victim as per the medical report.

22. After perusing the record in the
light of the submissions made at the bar
and after taking an overall view of all the
facts and circumstances of this case, the
nature of evidence, the period of detention
already undergone, the unlikelihood of
early conclusion of trial and also in the
absence of any convincing material to
indicate the possibility of tampering with
the evidence and on the ground of parity
and in view of the larger mandate of the
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
the dictum of Apex Court in the case of
Kamal Vs. State of Haryana (supra),
Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh (supra), Dharmendra (Juvenile)
vs. State of U.P. and others (supra),
Japani Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar
Mohanty (supra) and Shiv Kumar alias
Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. (supra), this
6 All. Juvenile 'Xyz' Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
265
Court is of the view that the present
criminal revision may be allowed and the
revisionist may be released on bail.

23. In the result, this revision
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
judgment and order dated 01.06.2023
passed
by
Additional
Sessions
Judge/learned Special Judge (POCSO) Act
No. 1, Lucknow passed in Criminal Appeal
No. 259/2022: Shiva Vs. State of U.P.), and
the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by
Juvenile Justice Board, Mohan Road,
Lucknow, in Misc. Case No. 159 of 2022,
arising out of the Case Crime no. 613 of
2021, Under Sections 376 DB, 323, 504,
506 IPC & 5m/6 POCSO Act of Police
Station Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow
are hereby set aside and reversed. The bail
application
of
the
revisionist
stands
allowed.

24. Let the revisionist, Shiva through
his natural guardian/father Ram Das be
released on bail in Case Crime no. 613 of
2021, Under Sections 376 DB, 323, 504,
506 IPC & 5m/6 POCSO Act of Police
Station Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow
upon his natural guardian furnishing a
personal bond with two solvent sureties of
his relatives each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board,
Lucknow
subject
to
the
following
conditions:

(i) That the natural guardian/
father Ram Das of the revisionist 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 natural guardian
will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat
the offence.

(ii) The revisionist and his natural
guardian/father Ram Das will report to the
District Probation Officer on the first
Wednesday of every calendar month
commencing with the first Wednesday of
July, 2024 and if during any calendar
month the first Wednesday falls on a
holiday, then on the next 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 concerned 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 or the certified copy issued by
the Registry of the 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.

25. However, considering the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, the
court below is directed to make every
possible endeavour to conclude the trial of
the aforesaid case within a period of six
months from today without granting
unnecessary adjournments to either of the
parties.
----------