# Khushi (Minor) Revisionist (In Jail) v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 210
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 113 of 2021
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/khushi-minor-revisionist-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47074
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A.G.A.

Revisionist declared juvenile-Bail rejectedAppeal rejected-short lived association of
Revisionist with Amar Dubey a close associate
of Vikas Dubey-her participation in gruesome
crime-subsequent
conduct
in
observation
home-firmly placed her case in category
where if released on bail-would come into
association
with
known
criminals-causing
moral, physical and psychological danger to
her.

Held, Not only the spontaneous elimination of
eight policemen in action and six others left
injured, is a horrendous crime that shocks the
conscience of the society, but also an act that
strikes at the roots of the State's authority in
its territory. It speaks about the unfathomable
extent of the lack of fear of the State in the
minds of those who conceived and executed
the dastardly act. Prima facie, if not at the
center stage of this diabolical act, certainly as
an important player, the revisionist seems to
have
actively
participated.
In
the
circumstances, permitting the revisionist to
walk out free on bail would shake the law
abiding citizens' faith in the rule of law and
the State's authority. If that were to be done,
it would certainly defeat the ends of justice.
(para 15)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1.Raju @ Ashish Vs State of U.P. & anr. 2018
SCC OnLine All 3100

2.Raju (Minor) Vs St.of U.P. & anr., 2020 (6) All.
LJ 451

## Text

210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Criminal
Appeal No.80 of 2017 and order dated
10.10.2017 passed by Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur in Case
No.60/2017
arising
out
of
Crime
No.100/2017, under Section 376-D I.P.C.
and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police
Station Manpur, District Sitapur, are hereby
set aside.

11.

The
juvenile
(Takla
@
Dharmeshwar) shall be released on bail in
Case Crime No.100/2017 (supra). It is
pertinent to mention here, since the
revisionist has turned an adult and of age
more than 21 years, he shall be released
upon furnishing a personal bond himself
and two sureties each of the like amount to
the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned.
Out of two sureties, one shall be
mother/father or close relative of the
revisionist, subject to following conditions
:-

(i) The revisionist shall file an
undertaking to the effect that he shall not
seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for
evidence when the witnesses are present in
court. In case of default of this condition, it
shall be open for the trial court to treat it as
abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in
accordance with law.

(ii) The revisionist shall remain
present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his
counsel. In case of his absence, without
sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed
against him under Section 229-A of the
Indian Penal Code.

(iii) In case, the revisionist
misuses the liberty of bail during trial and
in
order
to
secure
his
presence
proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is
issued and the revisionist fails to appear
before the court on the date fixed in such
proclamation, then, the trial court shall
initiate
proceedings
against
him,
in
accordance with law, under Section 174-A
of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The revisionist shall remain
present in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case,
(ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in
the opinion of the trial court absence of the
applicant is deliberate or without sufficient
cause, then it shall be open for the trial
court to treat such default as abuse of
liberty of bail and proceed against him in
accordance with law.

(v)The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad.

(vi) The computer generated copy
of such order shall be self attested by the
counsel of the party concerned.

(vii)
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.
----------

(2021)07ILR A210
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Criminal Revision No. 113 of 2021

Khushi (Minor) ...Revisionist (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Prabha Shanker Mishra
7 All. Khushi (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
211
Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Revisionist declared juvenile-Bail rejectedAppeal rejected-short lived association of
Revisionist with Amar Dubey a close associate
of Vikas Dubey-her participation in gruesome
crime-subsequent
conduct
in
observation
home-firmly placed her case in category
where if released on bail-would come into
association
with
known
criminals-causing
moral, physical and psychological danger to
her.

Held, Not only the spontaneous elimination of
eight policemen in action and six others left
injured, is a horrendous crime that shocks the
conscience of the society, but also an act that
strikes at the roots of the State's authority in
its territory. It speaks about the unfathomable
extent of the lack of fear of the State in the
minds of those who conceived and executed
the dastardly act. Prima facie, if not at the
center stage of this diabolical act, certainly as
an important player, the revisionist seems to
have
actively
participated.
In
the
circumstances, permitting the revisionist to
walk out free on bail would shake the law
abiding citizens' faith in the rule of law and
the State's authority. If that were to be done,
it would certainly defeat the ends of justice.
(para 15)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1.Raju @ Ashish Vs State of U.P. & anr. 2018
SCC OnLine All 3100

2.Raju (Minor) Vs St.of U.P. & anr., 2020 (6) All.
LJ 451

3. Mangesh Rajbhar Vs St. of U.P, (2018) 6 ADJ
60

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

This Criminal Revision is directed
against a judgment and order of Mr. Ranjeet
Kumar, the Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Court No. 13/Special Judge
(POCSO
Act),
Kanpur
Dehat
dated
24.11.2020, dismissing Criminal Appeal No.
40 of 2020 and affirming orders dated
15.09.2020 and 13.10.2020 passed by the
Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat
refusing bail to the revisionist pending trial,
in the case arising out of Case Crime No. 192
of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302,
307, 396, 332, 333, 412, 353, 504, 506, 34,
120B of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 and
Section 7 of The Criminal Law (Amendment)
Act, 1961 and Section 3/4 of The Explosive
Substances Act, 1908, Police Station -
Chaubeypur, District - Kanpur Nagar.

2. It appears that the nuptials were
hardly over for the revisionist, Khushi and
her husband Amar Dubey, on July the 3rd,
2020, when the infamous incident at
Village Bikru, Kanpur Nagar took place. It
all happened at the house of one Vikas
Dubey, whom the Police, in strong
numbers, had gone to arrest. It is the
prosecution case that Vikas Dubey, who
was a dreaded gangster, somehow, laid in
wait, along with his henchmen, for the
Police to arrive. Vikas's associates, that
included his relatives, had positioned
themselves at strategic points, atop the roof
of his house and those abutting it. They
opened indiscriminate fire on the incoming
police force, which led to eight police
personnel being shot dead and another six
sustaining grievous gunshot injuries. A
private driver of the then Station House
Officer of the local police station also
sustained injuries. It is the prosecution
case, much of which figures in the eyewitness account of the surviving police
personnel, recorded in their statements
under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19732 that while the menfolk
212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pumped bullets into the police personnel,
the wives of all the accused were aiding
and
instigating
their
husbands.
The
revisionist is also credited with the role of
instigating the menfolk to do the policemen
to death. She is stated to have been atop a
house adjoining Vikas Dubey's, during
entire course of the brutal assault.

3. The revisionist applied to be
declared a juvenile to the Juvenile Justice
Board, Kanpur Dehat3. She was found to
be 16 years, 10 months and 12 days old on
the date of occurrence. She was, thus, well
below 18 years of age. She was declared a
juvenile by the Board, vide order dated
01.09.2020. The revisionist then made an
application for bail to the Board, which
came up for determination on 15.09.2020.
It was rejected by the Board. She then
preferred a second application for bail to
the Board, that came to be rejected again by
an order dated 13.10.2020.

4. Aggrieved by the orders dated
15.09.2020 and 13.10.2020, declining bail,
the revisionist carried an appeal to the
learned Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat,
under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
20154.
The
appeal
came
up
for
determination before the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 13/
Special Judge (POCSO Act) Kanpur Dehat,
on
24.11.2020.
The
learned
Judge
dismissed the appeal and affirmed the
Board.

5. Disillusioned by concurrent refusal
of bail pending trial by the two courts
below, this revision has been instituted.

6. Heard Mr. Prabha Shanker Mishra,
learned Counsel for the revisionist in
support of this revision and Mr. Manish
Goyal, the learned Additional Advocate
General assisted by Mr. Rajesh Mishra,
learned Additional Government Advocate
on behalf of the State.

7. The submission of Mr. Prabha
Shanker Mishra, learned Counsel for the
revisionist, made very persuasively, is that
the revisionist has been implicated in this
crime, because she had the misfortune of
marrying Amar Dubey, a few days before
the occurrence. It is urged by Mr. Mishra
that the revisionist is a minor and a young
girl, a month and some days shy of 17
years. She or her family, that is to say, her
parents and siblings, have no criminal
antecedents. In her own right, she was
neither an associate of the principal
accused, Vikas Dubey, or a member of his
gang. She was no more than an innocent
person in the wrong place, at the wrong
time. Mr. Mishra says that she had reasons
perfectly compatible with her innocence, to
be at or about Vikas Dubey's house, as her
husband, Amar Dubey, was a relative of
Vikas's. It was that, that she was there with
her husband when this skirmish took place.
She had not the slightest role in the entire
episode. All that has been said about her is
utter concoction by the Police, who have
gone after every family member, relative
and associate of Vikas Dubey, after the
occurrence, with a vindictiveness that does
not behove a state law enforcement agency.
Quite apart, it is argued by Mr. Mishra that
Khushi, being a child in conflict with law,
is entitled to bail by dint of Section 12(1) of
the Act of 2015 and placed in the care of
her father, who has applied for bail on her
behalf. He says that Khushi's father is a
respectable man and can keep her insulated
from all kind of moral, physical and
psychological danger. Her father can well
ensure that she does not come into
association with any known criminal, while
7 All. Khushi (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
213
on the liberty of bail. He submits that
Khushi being not at all particeps criminis,
it is not a case where extending her the
liberty of bail would lead to ends of justice
being defeated.

8. Mr. Manish Goyal, the learned
Additional Advocate General, on the other
hand, submits that Khushi was no silent
spectator to the gruesome crime committed
by Vikas Dubey and his gang, that included
her deceased husband Amar Dubey. He has
drawn
the
Court's
attention
to
the
statements of more than one policemen,
who were part of the beleaguered police
party, eight of whose members fell in
action, and six others sustained grievous
gunshot injuries. He emphasized with
reference to the statements of the survivors
of that ghastly episode, that Khushi was an
active participant throughout the assault.
She was aiding and instigating the men not
to spare any policeman. Mr. Goyal then
submits that Khushi, though a child in
conflict with law and adjudged to be so by
the Board, is nevertheless above the age of
16 years, though less than 18. She has been
subjected by the Board to an inquiry under
Section 15 of the Act of 2015. Considering
that she is above 16 years of age, and the
offence involved is heinous in nature, it is
pointed out that the Board have opined, on
a
preliminary
assessment,
that
the
revisionist has the requisite mental and
physical capacity to commit the offence, as
also
the
ability
to
understand
the
consequences.
The
Board
have
also
considered the circumstances in which she
committed the dereliction and doing all
this, opined, in exercise of powers under
Section 18(3) of the Act of 2015, that it is
fit case where the revisionist deserves to be
tried as an adult. In consequence, by the
order dated 17.12.2020, the Board have
transferred the revisionist's case for trial
to the Children's Court of competent
jurisdiction. Mr. Goyal has drawn the
Court's attention to the last mentioned
order, annexed as Annexure SCA-1 to the
supplementary
counter
affidavit
dated
24.06.2021.

9. Mr. Goyal has further drawn the
Court's attention to the conduct of the
revisionist,
while
interned
in
the
Government Observation Center (Girls) at
Barabanki. In this connection, he has
placed before this Court a copy of the
memo dated 23.10.2020 addressed by the
Assistant
Superintendent
of
the
Observation Home at Barabanki to the
Board. The Assistant Superintendent has
drawn the Board's attention to the fact that
the Center have two rooms at their
disposal, where 48 girls are interned. The
revisionist has been reported to be
wayward. It is said that she tells the other
inmates that she has contacts with persons
of great influence. She also repeatedly
threatens other inmates that she can get
anyone abducted from the Center any time,
and that no one in the Observation Center
can hold her to account. A copy of the said
letter has been annexed as Annexure SCA2 to the supplementary counter affidavit
dated 24.06.2021 filed on behalf of the
State. In the circumstances in which the
gruesome crime has been committed and
the apparent participation of the revisionist
there, Mr. Goyal submits that it is a case
where enlarging the revisionist on bail
pending trial would defeat the ends of
justice. In support of his contention, Mr.
Goyal has placed reliance on a decision of
this Court in Raju alias Ashish v. State of
U.P. & Another5 and counted on another
decision of this Court in Raju (Minor) v.
State of U.P. and Another6.
214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. This Court has given a thoughtful
consideration to the submissions made on
both sides and perused the record. It is true
that bail to a child in conflict with law has
to be granted as a matter of right dehors the
merits of the case against him/her. The
aforesaid rule of universal bail is subject
only to the three disentitling grounds,
envisaged under the proviso to Section
12(1) of the Act of 2015. Section 12(1)
reads :

12. Bail of juvenile.--

(1) When any person accused of a
bailable or non-bailable offence, and
apparently a juvenile, is arrested or
detained or appears or is 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 1[or placed
under the supervision of a Probation
Officer or under the care of any fit
institution of fit person] but he shall not be
so released if there appear 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.

11. The case here is one where the
association between the revisionist and her
deceased husband might have been short; it
was not sweet. This Court has carefully
looked into the submissions of SubInspector Vishwanath Mishra, Constable
Rajiv Kumar, Sub-Inspector Azhar Ishrat,
Sub-Inspector Kunwar Pal Singh and
Constable
Sudhakar
Pandey,
besides
Constable Nem Singh. These statements
are recorded in C.D. No. 1 dated
03.07.2020, C.D. No. 4 dated 06.07.2020,
C.D. No. 72 dated 10.09.2020, C.D. No. 74
dated 12.09.2020 and C.D. No. 86 dated
25.09.2020.
Sub-Inspector
Vishwanath
Mishra, in his statement under Section 161
of the Code, has stated that there were
women atop the house, who were exhorting
that no police personnel should go back
alive, and were instigating the men to do
so. The Sub-Inspector has stated that he
inquired about the identity of the women
and came to know that they were - Smt.
Bhavna, wife of Samir Dubey alias Sanju,
Smt. Khushi, wife of Amar Dubey (the
revisionist), Smt. Rekha Agnihotri, wife of
Daya Shanker alias Kallu. All the officers
and men, whose statements have been
recorded, have credited the revisionist with
the role of instigating and exhorting the
men to do every man in the police party to
death. Constable Rajiv Kumar, who was in
the thick of action, has stated that Vikas
Dubey and his men looked around the
entire place, searching out police officers
and men to shoot them. He has said that he
saw Smt. Rekha Agnihotri, wife of Daya
Shankar standing atop the rooftop of Vikas
Dubey's house, exhorting men to shoot
down the police personnel, and his
companions present on the spot told him
that Khushi, along with Bhavna Dubey and
Shanti Devi were giving out locations of
the
policemen,
who
had
concealed
themselves to save their lives and exhorting
Vikas Dubey's men to do the policemen to
death. Likewise, in the statement of SubInspector Azhar Ishrat recorded under
Section 161 of the Code, it is said that there
were a few women atop the other houses
located around Vikas Dubey's house, who
were exhorting Dubey's associates to
eliminate all policemen. He has further
stated that he inquired about the identity of
those women, and came to know that they
were Smt. Bhavna, wife of Samir Dubey
alias Sanju, Smt. Khushi, wife of Amar
7 All. Khushi (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
215
Dubey
(the
revisionist),
Smt.
Rekha
Agnihotri, wife of Daya Shanker alias
Kallu. There are, thus, accounts of various
policemen
about
the
very
overt
participation of the revisionist in the
gruesome murder of as many as eight
policemen in uniform, who were about
their duty. She is credited with the role of
exhorting men in Vikas Dubey's gang to
eliminate every one of the policemen. The
officers and men, whose statements have
been recorded under Section 161, were all
part of the police party that was in the thick
of action, when they came under heavy fire
from Vikas Dubey and his men, on the
fateful night. Their statements on account
of the occurrence at this stage, therefore,
cannot be ignored.

12. It may be true, as already said,
that the revisionist was married to Amar
Dubey a few days before the occurrence,
but from the account of all the eyewitnesses, she was certainly not one who
was an idle spectator. She played a decisive
role prima facie in the gruesome crime.
The question now is that the revisionist,
being a child in conflict with law, does her
case fall into any of the exceptions to the
universal rule of bail, postulated under the
proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act of
2015? This Court does not know under
what circumstances and by what origins of
association she was married to Amar
Dubey, who was, apparently, a faithful
associate of Vikas Dubey. It is quite
possible that the marriage was short-lived,
but the association was long, on account of
which, a newly-wed bride was seen moving
around with men wielding guns, directing
their fire to hidden policemen, and
exhorting them to shoot each policemen to
death. If the witnesses, who were all
policemen and members of the party, many
of whom fell in action, are to be
believed, the revisionist's act in standing
atop the roof of a house close to Vikas
Dubey's, in the thick of gunfire and
exhorting Dubey's men to eliminate all
members of the police party, is conduct not
even remotely compatible with the picture
of a newly-wed bride, who was caught
unawares, that Mr. Mishra wants this Court
to believe.

13. This Court also cannot ignore the
conduct of the revisionist reported by the
Assistant
Superintendent
of
the
Observation Home, where she is interned.
There is no reason why the Assistant
Superintendent would come forward with
complaints of that kind against an inmate,
contents whereof we have noticed above.
Whatever has been reported by the
Assistant
Superintendent,
shows
the
revisionist's continuing close association
with hardened criminals, inasmuch as she
has threatened other inmates of her
resources to get anyone abducted from the
Observation Home. This Court is of
considered opinion that the short-lived
association of the revisionist's with Amar
Dubey, a close associate of Vikas Dubey's,
followed by her participation in the
gruesome crime, and her subsequent
conduct in the observation home, firmly
place her case in the category where, if
released on bail, she would come into
association with known criminals. That, in
turn, would cause moral, physical and
psychological danger to her. Quite apart,
the submission advanced by Mr. Mishra,
that the merits of the charge is irrelevant to
the bail plea of a juvenile, in view of the
provision under Section 12(1) of the Act of
2015, is not well founded. The merits of the
prosecution case ipso facto may not be
relevant to judge a juvenile's bail plea, but
216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is certainly one of the factors to be taken
into account while assessing whether grant
of bail to the juvenile would lead to ends of
justice being defeated. I have extensively
dealt with this issue in Mangesh Rajbhar
v. State of U.P.7 where I have held :

24. This court from what appears
on a furter (sic further) reading of the
judgment in Raja (minor) (supra) did not
construe the last of the three grounds for
the refusal of bail to a juvenile in the
proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act ejusdem
generis; rather, this court in that case
referred to the merits of the case and
related the ground for denying bail to the
juvenile being released on bail "would
defeat the ends of justice" with the merits
of the prosecution case. In other words, this
Court found in the expression "defeat the
ends of justice" a repose for the society to
defend itself from the onslaught of a minor
in conflict with law by certainly making
relevant though not decisive, the inherent
character of the offence committed by the
minor. In this connection paragraph nos.
11, 12 and 13 of the judgment in Raja
(minor) (supra) may be gainfully quoted.

"11. The report of the medical
examination of the victim clearly shows
that the revisionist had forced himself upon
the victim, who was seven years old child
and in the statements under sections 161
Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., the child had
clearly deposed about how she was taken
away by the revisionist and later on caught
on the spot by the public and he pretended
to be taking a bath. In the orders impugned,
there is specific mention about the fact that
the revisionist was accused by name by the
victim, who was studying in class II and the
release on bail of the revisionist would
defeat the ends of justice.

12. Having gone through the
record of the case including statement
under section 161 Cr.P.C. and the statement
under section 164 Cr.P.C. given by the
victim and also the report of the medical
examination of the victim, which shows
penetration by force and resultant injury, I
am of the opinion that there is no legal
infirmity in the orders impugned as the
release on bail of the revisionist would
indeed defeat the ends of justice.

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."

15. In the light of above statutory
provision bail prayer of the juvenile
revisionist has to be considered on the
7 All. Khushi (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
217
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."

26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Om Prakash vs. State of
Rajasthan and another, (2012) 5 SCC 201:
2012 (2) ACR 1825 (SC) has brought in
due concern in matters relating to juveniles
where the offences are heinous like rape,
murder, gang-rape and the like etc., and,
has indicated that in such matters, the
nature and gravity of the offence would be
relevant; the minor cannot get away by
shielding himself behind veil of minority. It
has been held in Om Prakash (supra) by
their Lordships thus:

"3. Juvenile Justice Act was
enacted with a laudable object of providing
a separate forum or a special court for
holding trial of children/juvenile by the
juvenile court as it was felt that children
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. But when an
accused is alleged to have committed a
heinous offence like rape and murder or
any other grave offence when he ceased to
be a child on attaining the age of 18 years,
but seeks protection of the Juvenile Justice
Act under the ostensible plea of being a
minor, should such an accused be allowed
to be tried by a juvenile court or should he
be referred to a competent court of criminal
jurisdiction where the trial of other adult
persons are held.

23. ...... Similarly, if the conduct
of an accused or the method and manner of
commission of the offence indicates an evil
and a well planned design of the accused
committing the offence which indicates
more towards the matured skill of an
accused than that of an innocent child, then
in the absence of reliable documentary
evidence in support of the age of the
accused, medical evidence indicating that
the accused was a major cannot be allowed
to be ignored taking shelter of the principle
of benevolent legislation like the Juvenile
Justice Act, subverting the course of justice
as statutory protection of the Juvenile
Justice Act is meant for minors who are
innocent law breakers and not accused of
matured mind who uses the plea of
minority as a ploy or shield to protect
himself from the sentence of the offence
committed by him."

27. It seems thus that the
suggestion of the learned counsel for the
revisionist that bail to a juvenile or more
properly called a child in conflict with law
can be denied under the last ground of the
proviso to Section 12 ejusdem generis with
the first two and not with reference to the
gravity of the offence, does not appear to
be tenable. The gravity of the offence is
218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
certainly relevant though not decisive. It is
this relevance amongst other factors where
gravity of the offence committed works and
serves as a guide to grant or refuse bail in
conjunction with other relevant factors to
refuse bail on the last ground mentioned in
the proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Act,
that is to say, on ground that release would
"defeat the ends of justice".

28. Under the Act, as it now
stands there is further guidance much more
than what was available under the Act,
2000 carried in the provisions of Section 15
and 18 above extracted and the definition
of certain terms used in those sections. A
reading of Section 18 of the Act shows that
the case of a child below the age of 16
years, who has committed a heinous crime
as defined in the Act is made a class apart
from cases of petty offence or the serious
offence committed by a child in conflict
with the law/juvenile of any age, and, it is
further provided that various orders that
may be made by the Board as spelt out
under clause (g) of Section 15 depending
on nature of the offences, specifically the
need for supervision or intervention based
on circumstances as brought out in the
social investigation report and past conduct
of the child. Though orders under Section
18 are concerned with final orders to be
made while dealing with the case of a
juvenile, the same certainly can serve as a
guide to the exercise of power to grant bail
to a juvenile under Section 12(1) of the Act
which is to be exercised by the Board in the
first instance.

29. Read in the context of the fine
classification of juveniles based on age visa-vis the nature of the offence committed
by them and reference to a specifically
needed supervision or intervention, the
circumstances brought out in the social
investigation report and past conduct of the
child which the Board may take into
consideration, while passing final orders
under Section 18 of the Act it is, in the
opinion of this court, a good guide for the
Board while exercising powers to grant bail
to go by the same principles though
embodied in Section 18 of the Act, when
dealing with a case under the last part of
the proviso to Section 12 (1) that authorizes
the Board to deny bail on ground that
release of the juvenile would "defeat the
ends of justice."

30. Thus, it is no ultimate rule
that a juvenile below the age of 16 years
has to be granted bail and can be denied the
privilege only on the first two of the
grounds mentioned in the proviso, that is to
say, likelihood of the juvenile on release
being likely to be brought in association
with any known criminal or in consequence
of being released exposure of the juvenile
to moral, physical or psychological danger.
It can be equally refused on the ground that
releasing a juvenile, that includes a juvenile
below 16 years would "defeat the ends of
justice." In the opinion of this Court the
words
"defeat
the
ends
of
justice"
employed in the proviso to Section 12 of
the Act postulate as one of the relevant
consideration, the nature and gravity of the
offence though not the only consideration
in applying the aforesaid part of the
disentitling legislative edict. Other factors
such as the specific need for supervision or
intervention, circumstances as brought out
in the social investigation report and past
conduct of the child would also be relevant
that are spoken of under Section 18 of the
Act.

31. In this context Section 12 and
18 and also Section15 (Section 15 not
relevant in the case of a child below 16
years) and other relevant provisions all of
which find place in Chapter IV of the Act
are part of an integrated scheme. The
power to grant bail to a juvenile under
7 All. Khushi (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
219
Section 12(1) cannot be exercised divorced
from the other provisions or as the learned
counsel for the revisionist argues on the
other specific disentitling provisions in the
grounds mentioned in the proviso to
Section 12(1) of the Act. The submission
made based on the rule of ejusdem generis
urged by the learned counsel for the
revisionist is misplaced, in the opinion of
this Court."

14. In the context of the aforesaid
decision in Mangesh Rajbhar (supra) I
have held in Raju alias Ashish (supra) :

11. Going by the aforesaid
principle it cannot be said that bail to a
juvenile can be denied on the first two
grounds mentioned in the proviso alone
or that the 3rdground that speaks about
the result of release being to defeat the
ends of justice would have no reference
to the nature and gravity of the offence.
Its impact on the society certainly
deserves some consideration of the
prosecution case prima facie. Of course,
other facts such as specific need for
supervision
or
intervention
or
circumstances brought out in the social
investigation report and past conduct of
the child would also be relevant that find
mention in Section 18 of the Act.

12. The facts of the case in hand
show that it is a case where the
revisionist along with co-accused to
begin with indulged in an act of eve
teasing followed by molestation of one of
the victims who was a minor girl, and,
when her brother came to her rescue they
engaged in an altercation with him, and
then, pushed both the brother and the
sister into a well. The entire act in itself
about which there is prima facie good
evidence and a deeper finding not
warranted, is an act that shakes the
conscience of the society. The offence is
heinous. It is a double murder preceded
by molestation of a young girl. It
precisely falls, in the opinion of the court,
into that category of cases where if,
release on bail were to be ordered, it
would defeat the ends of justice.

15.

An
overall
look
on
the
circumstances of the case brings to mind
the fact that the occurrence, in which the
revisionist was involved, was not of an
ordinary kind. Not only the spontaneous
elimination of eight policemen in action
and six others left injured, is a horrendous
crime that shocks the conscience of the
society, but also an act that strikes at the
roots of the State's authority in its territory.
It speaks about the unfathomable extent of
the lack of fear of the State in the minds of
those who conceived and executed the
dastardly act. Prima facie, if not at the
center stage of this diabolical act, certainly
as an important player, the revisionist
seems to have actively participated. In the
circumstances, permitting the revisionist to
walk out free on bail would shake the law
abiding citizens' faith in the rule of law and
the State's authority. If that were to be
done, it would certainly defeat the ends of
justice.

16. This Court, therefore, finds the
revisionist disentitled to bail under all the
three exceptions to the rule, envisaged
under the proviso to Section 12(1) of the
Act of 2015.

17. It is, however, clarified that the
remarks here are confined to judging the
revisionist's bail plea and should, in no
220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
way, be understood or construed as
comments on the merits of the case, that is
to be judged at the trial.

18. In the result, this criminal
revisions fails and stands dismissed.

19.

Let
this
order
be
communicated to the Children's Court,
Kanpur Dehat concerned as well as the
Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat,
through the learned Sessions Judge,
Kanpur
Dehat,
by
the
Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2021)07ILR A220
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J.

Criminal Revision No. 169 of 2020

Ram Kishan Yadav (Minor) ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sukh Deo Singh, Ashutosh Mishra, Paritosh
Shukla, Shailendra Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate

Revisionist declared juvenile- 15 years 7 months
and 5 days-bail rejected-Appeal rejected-Report
of District Probation Officer states no previous
criminal antecedents-co-accused granted bailcase not under three exception u/s 12 (1) of
Act,2015.

Bail granted. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1.Dharmendra (Juvenile) Vs State of U.P. & ors.
in Criminal Revision No. 141 of 2017

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.)

1. This Criminal Revision has been
preferred by the juvenile Ram Kishan
Yadav through his father Rajendra Prasad
Yadav, under Section 102 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015 (in short Act of 2015) against the
order dated 18.12.2019 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge
POCSO Act, Sultanpur, in Criminal Appeal
No.128 of 2019 Ram Kishan Yadav Vs.
State of U.P. and also against order dated
21.11.2019
passed
by
the
Principal
Magistrate,
Juvenile
Justice
Board
Sultanpur, in Case Crime No. 208 of 2019,
under Sections 302, 201 of Indian Penal
Code (in short I.P.C.) and Section 3(2)(V)
of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(in short SC/ST Act), Police Station
Kudwar, District Sultanpur.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of
this Criminal Revision are as under:-

3. A First Information Report bearing
Case Crime No. 208 of 2019 was presented
by complainant Sher Bahadur alleging that
his brother Sunny Gautam went out from
the home on 05.05.2019 at about 11:00 am.
When he did not come back the family
members became worried. On 06.05.2019
in the evening at about 7:00 pm the
brother-in-law of the complainant inquired
on telephone about the whereabouts of
Sunny Gautam. The complainant told him
that he had gone out, on this point his
brother-in-law informed him that some
unknown persons have killed Sunny and
threw the dead body in the forest of Purwa
Majre
Sohgauli,
Sultanpur.
On
this