# Lalit @ Chhena Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2020) 12 ILRA 544
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-12-03
- **Case number:** Crl. Rev. No. 737 of 2020
- **Bench:** Deepak Verma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lalit-chhena-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-45639
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 397/401 & Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 504, 34 &
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act 2015- Section 12-applicationrejection-grant of bail to juvenile-juvenile is
entitled to the benefit of the provisions of
the Act-revisionist was minor at the time of
incident-the prosecution story does not
support the medical report-Juvenile Justice
Board declared him as minor determining
his age 16 years 04 months and 09 days-coaccused has been granted bail-only gravity
of offence is not relevant consideration for
refusing grant of bail to juvenile as has been
envisaged in Section 12 of the Act-the Board
or the lower appellate court has not given
any reason that his release would defeat the
ends of justice in the event if he be released
on bail.(Para 5 to 21)

B. Under Section 12 the prayer for bail
may
be
rejected
if
there
appear
reasonable grounds for believing that the
release of the juvenile is likely to bring
him into the association with any known
criminal or expose him to moral, physical
12 All. Lalit @ Chhena Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
545
or psychological danger or that his release
would defeat the ends of justice. It is
important
to
note
that
gravity
or
seriousness of the offence, should not be
taken as an obstacle or hindrance by the
Legislature to refuse bail to a delinquent
juvenile. (Para 10 to 20)

The Revision is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mfpr jkf'k gksuh pkfg, ds fy;s ykxw djsa rks ;g
fofnr gksrk gS fd] orZeku izdj.k esa vijk/k djrs gq, u
rks fdlh Hkh rjg dh fgalk dk mi;ksx gqvk gS u gh
vfHk;qDr dk dksbZ f?kukSuk pfj= gh nf'kZr gksrk gSA
gkykWfd vfHk;qDr us Ny djds oknh ls fdLrksa esa dqy :0
53000@ csbZekuh ls mRizsfjr dj ds fy;s Fks] ftlls oknh
dks vkfFkZd uqdlku vo'; gqvk gSA vfHk;qDr dk vijk/k
esa izR;{k :i ls lafyIrrk gS] blesa nks jk; ugha gSA ijUrq
eqdnek nk;j gksus ls iwoZ gh :0 12000 dk oknh dks
okil djuk] vfHk;qDr ds vk'k; o vijk/k dh xaHkhjrk dks
de vo'; djrk gSA blds vfrfjDr vihyh; izfdz;k esa
U;k;ky; }kjk ltk dh vof/k o tqekZuk dh jkf'k dk de
djuk] vfHk;qDr dk dksbZ vkSj vijkf/kd bfrgkl dk uk
gksuk] vijk/k dh iqujko`fRr u djuk] ;g n'kkZrk gS fd
vfHk;qDr us vius pfj= esa lq/kkj fd;k gSA blds vfrfjDr
;g rF; fd vijk/k o"kZ 2001 esa ?kfVr gqvk Fkk] rc
vfHk;qDr dh mez 46 o"kZ Fkh vkSj orZeku esa 65 o"kZ gS] dk
Hkh /;ku esa j[kuk vko';d gSA izdj.k eSa izfrdj nsuk Hkh
mfpr jgsxkA

11& mijksDr leLr rF;kRed o fof/kd fooj.k]
vijk/k o mfpr ltk rFkk izfrdj] vijk/kh dh fLFkfr]
oknh dks gqvk vkfFkZd o ekufld uqdlku dk
rqyukRed v/;;u djus ij bl U;k;ky; dh ;g
fuf'pr jk; gS fd U;k; ds fgr esa ;g vkns'k nsuk
U;k;laxr jgsxk dh ltk dh vof/k 1⁄428 fnol1⁄2 tks
vihyh; U;k;ky; us 5 o"kZ ls ?kVkdj 2 o"kZ djh gS]
mldks tks ltk dh vof/k vfHk;qDr us vkt rd
O;rhr dj j[kh gS] ml vof/k rd ifjofrZr fd;k
tk;s ijUrq tqekZuk jkf'k tks vihyh; U;k;ky; us 2
yk[k ls de djds #0 50000 djh Fkh] mldks c<+k
dj izfrdj ds :i esa :0 1 yk[k djus dk vkns'k
fn;k tk;s] tks laiw.kZ :i ls oknh dks fn;k tk;sA bl
jkf'k dks vfHk;qDr@iqufj{k.kdrkZ bl vkns'k dh frfFk
ls nks ekl ds vUnj oknh dks Hkqxrku djsxk vFkok
voj U;k;ky; esa tek djsxk rFkk mlh vof/k esa
mldk izek.k bl mPp U;k;ky; ds dk;kZy; esa tek
Hkh djsxkA voj U;k;ky; esa izfrdj tek gksus dh
n'kk esa voj U;k;ky;] oknh }kjk nkf[ky mfpr
vkosnu ij tek dh x;h jkf'k] oknh ds i{k esa tkjh
djsxkA rn~Ukqlkj vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gSA

12& Jh 'khryk izlkn ik.Ms;] vf/koDrk
1⁄4U;k;fe=1⁄2 dks mudh lsok ds fy, bl U;k;ky; ds
dk;kZy; dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd oks :0
5500@& dh jkf'k U;k;&fe= dks vfoYkEc nsaA

13& mijksDr vkns'kkuqlkj ;g iqufj{k.k ;kfpdk
vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA

14& bl vkns'k dh ,d izfr o leLr i=koyh
voj U;k;ky; dks vfoYkEc Hksth tk;sA
----------
(2020)12ILR A544
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

Crl. Rev. No. 737 of 2020

Lalit @ Chhena ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prashant Sharma, Sri Pankaj Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

A.
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 397/401 & Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 504, 34 &
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act 2015- Section 12-applicationrejection-grant of bail to juvenile-juvenile is
entitled to the benefit of the provisions of
the Act-revisionist was minor at the time of
incident-the prosecution story does not
support the medical report-Juvenile Justice
Board declared him as minor determining
his age 16 years 04 months and 09 days-coaccused has been granted bail-only gravity
of offence is not relevant consideration for
refusing grant of bail to juvenile as has been
envisaged in Section 12 of the Act-the Board
or the lower appellate court has not given
any reason that his release would defeat the
ends of justice in the event if he be released
on bail.(Para 5 to 21)

B. Under Section 12 the prayer for bail
may
be
rejected
if
there
appear
reasonable grounds for believing that the
release of the juvenile is likely to bring
him into the association with any known
criminal or expose him to moral, physical
12 All. Lalit @ Chhena Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
545
or psychological danger or that his release
would defeat the ends of justice. It is
important
to
note
that
gravity
or
seriousness of the offence, should not be
taken as an obstacle or hindrance by the
Legislature to refuse bail to a delinquent
juvenile. (Para 10 to 20)

The Revision is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited: -

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

2. Abdullah @ Abdul Hassan Vs St. of U.P. &
ors. (2015) 90 ACC 204

3. Maroof Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (2015) 6 ADJ 203

4. Suraj @ Ashok Sukla Thru. Father Mahendra
Shukla Vs St. of U.P. & anr. Crl. Rev. No. 112 of
2015

5. Amit Kumar Vs St. of U.P. (2010) 71 ACC 209

6. Sanjay Chaurasia Vs St. of U.P. (2006) Cr.L.J.
2957

7. A. Juvenile Vs St. of Ori., (2009) Cr. L.J.,
2002

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

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

10. Dharmendra (Juvenile) Vs St. of U.P. &
ors,(2018) 7 ADJ 864

11. Japani Sahoo Vs Chandra Sekhar Mohanty,
(2007) 7 SCC 394

(Delivered by Hon'ble Deepak Verma, J.)

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today
by learned counsel for the applicant is
taken on record.

2. List is revised. Despite service of
notice on opposite party no.2, none has
appeared on behalf of the opposite party
no. 2 to oppose the present criminal
revision.

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

4. This revision is directed against the
impugned judgment and order dated
20.1.2020 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Hathras,
dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 43 of
2019 (CNR No. UPHT 01-006395-2019)
(Lalit @ Chhena Vs. State of U.P. and
Another) under Section 53 of the the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act 2015 (for short 'the Act') and
affirming an order of Juvenile Justice
Board, Hathras dated 13.11.2019 refusing
the bail plea of the revisionist in Case
Crime No. 60 of 2019, under Sections 302,
504, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Sasni,
District- Hathras.

5. The facts of the present case is that
the revisionist was minor at the time of
incident. His aged was determined as 16
years 04 months and 09 days by the
Medical Board vide order dated 2.11.2019.
He further submitted that the applicant has
been assigned the role of catching hold of
the deceased as per as the statement of
accused who is major and the allegation of
murder is against him. The deceased was
having love affair with the sister of coaccused Rahul who threatened the deceased
not to meet with his sister. Co-accused
Rahul Kumar has been granted bail by the
coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 14.2.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.6969 of 2020. The bail
application of the revisionist has been
rejected on irrelevant consideration. There
is no evidence against the applicant, except
the statement of co-accused Rahul. As per
546 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as the D.P.O. report the act, conduct and
behaviour of the revisionist and his family
members are absolutely normal and have
cordial relation with the villagers. The
village Pradhan has also made a positive
statement regarding the conduct and
behaviour of revisionist. The revisionist has
no any past criminal antecedent. In the
event of his release on bail there is no
likelihood of his going into association
with any known and unknown criminals
and expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger. He further submitted
that gravity of offence cannot be looked on
merit while considering the bail of juvenile.
The report of the District Probation Officer
(annexed as Annexure 15 to the revision)
shows that revisionist having no criminal
record and in total observation, revisionist
can improve his mental criminal activities.
The revisionist is in observation home
since 24.02.2019 more than one and half
years have been passed.

6.

Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist/applicant
submits
that
revisionist is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in concocted case; revisionist is
a student of class VII; On 2.11.2019, the
revisionist appeared before the Juvenile
Justice Board, Hathras, where the Board
declared revisionist as minor determining
his age 16 years 04 months and 09 days,
which is less than 18 years on the date of
incident (23.2.2019). It is further submitted
that revisionist was declared as juvenile in
conflict of law on 02.11.2019 but even that
both the court below were failed to
consider the special provision for bail to
juvenile; there are contradiction in the
version of the F.I.R. and the statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164
Cr.P.C.; the prosecution story does not
support the medical report; only gravity of
the offence is not relevant consideration for
refusing grant of bail to juvenile as has
been envisaged in Section 12 of the Act and
it has been consistent view of various
courts; the Board or the lower appellate
court has not given any reason or material
on record which shows that release of the
juvenile is likely to bring him into
association with any known criminal or
expose
him
to
moral
physical
or
psychological danger, that his release
would defeat the ends of justice; there is no
criminal history of the applicant and there
is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;
the applicant has remained confined in the
child observation home for an unduly long
period of time, since 24.2.2019.

7. Learned A.G.A. vehemently
opposed the present criminal revision. It is
submitted that the incident reported is true
and it is wrong to say that the allegations
made against the revisionist/applicant are
false, and/are motivated. Also, reliance has
been placed on the findings recorded in the
bail rejection orders to submit that the
instant revision may be dismissed.

8. It is not in dispute that the
revisionist/applicant is a juvenile and is
entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the
Act. Under Section 12 of the Act, the prayer
for bail of a juvenile may be rejected 'if there
appear reasonable grounds for believing that
the release of the juvenile 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'.

9. 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
12 All. Lalit @ Chhena Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
547
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 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."

10. The above provisions clearly
show that once a person is held to be a
juvenile in conflict with law, then Section
12 of the Act would govern the question of
grant of bail and the custody of juvenile
and it will not be governed by the
provisions of the code of the criminal
procedure. It is important to note that
gravity or seriousness of the offence,
should not been taken as an obstacle or
hindrance by the Legislature to refuse bail
to a delinquent juvenile. No straight jacket
formula of inflexible nature can be laid
down as it would depend on facts and
circumstances of each case. Words "ends of
justice' is confined to those facts which
show that the grant of bail itself is likely to
result in injustice.

11. The court has to see whether the
opinion of the learned appellate Court as
well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in
the impugned judgment and orders are in
consonance with the provision of the Act.
Section 12 of the Act lays down three
contingencies in which bail may be refused
to a juvenile offender. These are:-

(i) if the release is likely to bring him
into association with any known criminal,
or

(ii) expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger, or

(iii) that his release would defeat the
ends of justice?

12. Gravity of the offence has not
been mentioned as a ground to reject the
bail. It is not a relevant factor while
considering to grant bail to the juvenile. It
has been so held by this Court in the cases
of Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of
U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB); Abdullah @
Abdul Hassan Vs. State of U.P. and Ohers
[2015 (90) ACC 204]; Maroof Vs. State of
U.P. and Another [2015 (6) ADJ 203];
Criminal Revision No. 112 of 2015 (Suraj
@ Ashok Sukla Thru. Father Mahendra
Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and Another) and
548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 2010(71)
ACC 209 decided on 02.07.2015.

13. The Act, namely, Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
being beneficiary and social reforms
oriented legislation, should be given full
effect by all concerned whenever matters
relating to juvenile comes for consideration
before them. 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
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."

14. Learned Magistrate by its order
dated 13.11.2019 has rejected the bail of
revisionist mentioning that the offence
committed by juvenile is heinous and nonbailable in nature.

15. 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."

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
paragraph 2 of the judgment in Kamal Vs.
State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 has
held thus:

"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
12 All. Lalit @ Chhena Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
549
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."

17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
paragraph-2 of the judgment in Takht Singh
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10)
SCC 463, has observed 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
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."

18. In the instant case, co-accused
Rahul Kumar has been granted bail by the
coordinate Bench of this Court. It does not
appear to bear any justification that the
revisionist may be denied his liberty by
testing his case with reference to the
disentitling condition mentioned in the
proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 12 of
the Act. In the case of Dharmendra
(Juvenile) vs. State of U.P. and others,
[2018 (7) ADJ 864], the High Court was
pleased to observe as under:

"10. The matter can be looked at from
another vantage. In case the revisionist
were an adult and stood charged of the
offence that he faces with a weak
circumstantial evidence of last seen and
confession to the police, in all probability,
it would have entitled him to bail pending
trial. If on the kind of evidence forthcoming
an adult would be entitled to bail, denying
bail to a child in conflict with law may be
denying the juvenile/ child in conflict with
law
the
equal
protection
of
laws
guaranteed under Article 14 of the
Constitution.

11. The rule in Section 12(1) of the
Act is in favour of bail always to a juvenile/
child in conflict with law except when the
case falls into one or the other categories
denial contemplated by the proviso. It is not
the rule about bail in Section 12 of the Act
that in case a child in conflict with law is
brought before the Board or Court, his case
is not to be seen on merits prima facie
about his complicity at all for the purpose
granting him bail; and all that has been
done is to see if his case falls is one or the
other exceptions, where he can be denied
bail. The rule in Section 12 sanctioning
bail universally to every child in conflict
with law presupposes that there is a prima
facie case against him in the assessment of
the Board or the Court based on the
evidence placed at that stage. It is where a
case against a child in conflict with law is
prima facie made out that the rule in
Section 12(1) of the Act that sanctions bail
as a rule, except the three categories
contemplated by the proviso comes into
550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
play. It is certainly not the rule, and, in the
opinion of the Court cannot be so, that a
case on materials and evidence collected
not being made out against a child at all,
his case has to be tested on the three
parameters where bail may be denied
presuming that a prima facie case is
constructively there. Thus, it would always
have to be seen whether a case prima facie
on merits against a child in conflict with
law is there on the basis of material
produced by the prosecution against him. If
it is found that a prima facie case on the
basis
of
material
produced
by
the
prosecution is there that would have led to
a denial of a bail to an adult offender, in
that case also the Rule in Section 12(1) of
the Act mandates that bail is to be granted
to a juvenile/ child in conflict with law
except where his case falls into any of the
three disentitling categories contemplated
by the proviso."

12. In the opinion of this Court,
therefore, the perception that merits of the
case on the basis of prima facie evidence is
absolutely irrelevant to a juvenile's bail
plea under the Act would not be in
conformity with the law. The catena of
decisions that speak about merits of the
case or the charge against a juvenile being
irrelevant, proceed on facts and not an
assumption that a case on merits is made
out, and, not where the case is not at all
made out prima facie. It is not that a child
alleged to be in conflict with law against
whom there is not iota of evidence to
connect him to the crime would still have
bail denied to him because his case may be
placed
in
or
the
other
disentitling
categories under the proviso to Section
12(1) of the Act. If this kind of a
construction were to be adopted it might
expose the provisions of Section 12(1) of
the Act to challenge on ground of violating
the guarantee of equal protection of laws
enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
It is an enduring principle that a
construction that lends a statute to
challenge about its constitutionality should
be eschewed and one that saves and
upholds its vires is to be adopted. In this
context the guidance of their Lordships of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Japani
Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007)
7 SCC 394 may be referred to:-

"51. The matter can be looked at from
different angle also. Once it is accepted (and
there is no dispute about it) that it is not within
the domain of the complainant or prosecuting
agency to take cognizance of an offence or to
issue process and the only thing the former can
do is to file a complaint or initiate proceedings
in accordance with law. If that action of
initiation of proceedings has been taken within
the period of limitation, the complainant is not
responsible for any delay on the part of the
Court or Magistrate in issuing process or
taking cognizance of an offence. Now, if he is
sought to be penalized because of the omission,
default or inaction on the part of the Court or
Magistrate, the provision of law may have to be
tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the
Constitution. It can possibly be urged that such
a provision is totally arbitrary, irrational and
unreasonable. It is settled law that a Court of
Law would interpret a provision which would
help sustaining the validity of law by applying
the doctrine of reasonable construction rather
than making it vulnerable and unconstitutional
by adopting rule of 'litera legis'. Connecting the
provision of limitation in Section 468 of the
Code with issuing of process or taking of
cognizance by the Court may make it
unsustainable and ultra vires Article 14 of the
Constitution."

19.

Thus,
it
remains
largely
undisputed that the applicant was a juvenile
on the date of occurrence; does not appear
to be prone to criminal proclivity or
12 All. Rajanikant Mani Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
551
criminal psychology, in light of the
observations of the D.P.O; does not have a
criminal history; has been in confinement
for an unduly long period of time, in as
much as the trial has not concluded within
time frame contemplated by the Act. Even
otherwise, there does not appear to exist
any factor or circumstance mentioned in
Section 12 of the Act as may disentitle the
applicant to grant of bail, at this stage.

20. In view of the above, it appears that the
findings recorded by the learned Court below are
in conflict with the settled principle in law, for the
purpose of grant of bail and are erroneous and
contrary to the law laid down by this court.
Consequently, those orders cannot be sustained.
The order dated 20.1.2020 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Hathras
and order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the Juvenile
Justice Board, Hathras are hereby set-aside.

21. In view of the observations made
above, the present criminal revision is allowed.
Let the revisionist/applicant- Lalit @ Chhena
involved in the aforesaid case crime be released
on bail through his natural guardian/ father,
upon his father furnishing personal bond with
two sureties each of like amount, to the
satisfaction of the court concerned with the
following conditions:

(i) That the natural guardian 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 father will ensure that the
juvenile will not repeat the offence.

(ii) The revisionist through his natural
guardian will report to the District
Probation Officer on the first Wednesday of
every calendar month commencing with the
first Wednesday of February, 2021 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,
Hathras 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.

22. 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 four months
from today without granting unnecessary
adjournments to either of the parties.
----------
(2020)12ILR A551
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Crl. Rev. No. 929 of 2020

Rajanikant Mani Tripathi ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents