# Manish Kanaujia Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 31
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1423 of 2019
- **Bench:** Anant Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manish-kanaujia-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45590
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section 397/401 & Indian
Penal Code,1860-Section- 363,366,376 &
Protection
of
Children
From
Sexual
Offence(POCSO)
Act,2012
&
Juvenile
Justice(Care
and
Protection
of
Children)Act,2015-Section 102-grant of bail
to juvenile-rejection of bail by lower courtHowever, Section 12(1) provides for bail to a
child in conflict with law-juvenile justice Act
is meant for minors who are innocent law
breakers-accused-juvenile granted bail on his
father furnishing a personal bond with two
sureties.(Para 3 to 8)

B. Section 12(1) of juvenile justice act
provides for If release is likely to bring that
person into association with any known
criminal or be exposed to any moral, physical
or psychological danger or the person's
release would defeat the ends of justice.
Board shall record the reasons for denying
bail.(Para 3)

Criminal Revision allowed.(E-6)

List of Cases Cited:

## Text

2 All. Manish Kanaujia Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
31
 not, which is a mandatory requirement of
Section 3 (1) (dha) of SC/ST Act.

9.

In
view
of
the
above
circumstances, to my view the trial court
has not properly appreciated the material
on record while passing the summoning
order against the appellants.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is
allowed. The summoning order dated
05.07.2019, passed by the trial court, so
far it relates to summoning of the
appellants under Section 3 (1) (dha) of
SC/ST Act is set aside. However, it is
made clear that the trial court shall
proceed with the trial relating to other
sections in accordance with law.
----------
(2020)02ILR A31
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANANT KUMAR, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1423 of 2019

Manish Kanaujia ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Indrajeet Shukla, Manoj Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section 397/401 & Indian
Penal Code,1860-Section- 363,366,376 &
Protection
of
Children
From
Sexual
Offence(POCSO)
Act,2012
&
Juvenile
Justice(Care
and
Protection
of
Children)Act,2015-Section 102-grant of bail
to juvenile-rejection of bail by lower courtHowever, Section 12(1) provides for bail to a
child in conflict with law-juvenile justice Act
is meant for minors who are innocent law
breakers-accused-juvenile granted bail on his
father furnishing a personal bond with two
sureties.(Para 3 to 8)

B. Section 12(1) of juvenile justice act
provides for If release is likely to bring that
person into association with any known
criminal or be exposed to any moral, physical
or psychological danger or the person's
release would defeat the ends of justice.
Board shall record the reasons for denying
bail.(Para 3)

Criminal Revision allowed.(E-6)

List of Cases Cited:

1. Rahul Patel Vs. St. Of U.P. & Anr.{2018(1) JIC
357 (All)}

2. Gurjeet Singh Vs. St. Of U.P. & Anr.{2018(3) JIC
48 (All)}

3. Om Prakash Vs. St. Of Rajasthan and Anr,(2012)
5 SCC 201

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anant Kumar, J.)

1. This Criminal revision under Section
102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 has been filed against the
judgment and order dated 20.09.2019, passed
by
the
learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar
Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2019, by
which the order dated 30.07.2019, passed by
the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar in
Bail Application No.22 of 2019 relating to
Case Crime No. 65 of 2019, under Section
363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO
Act,
Police
Station
Bhiti,
District
Ambedkar Nagar hsa been confirmed.

2. In this case an F.I.R. was lodged
on 20.04.2019 to the effect that on
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
15.04.2019 prosecutrix had gone to attend
her school but when she did not return
from the School, a search was made and it
was found that she had not gone to her
school. Thereafter, from the reliable
sources it was informed that named
accused persons had managed her to elope
with the revisionist. In this case initially
F.I.R. was lodged under Section 363, 366
IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act. It is
submitted that when the prosecutrix was
recovered after 3-4 days her statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.
was recorded wherein no such element
was stated that revisionist had taken her
forcibly, rather she stated that she had
gone to school and on the way co-accused
met her and advised her that if she wants
to do some job, she might get a good job
and she could earn her livelihood.

3. The submission of learned counsel
for the revisionist is that the impugned
orders passed by the courts below are
contrary to the parameters envisaged under
the proviso to Section 12(1) of Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015 in the matter of grant of bail to a
juvenile. In short, the submission of
learned counsel for the revisionist is to the
effect that there is nothing in the social
investigation report or in any other
evidence on record that may lead to the
conclusion that the case of the revisionist
falls within any of the three exceptions to
the rule in favour of bail to a juvenile
under the proviso to Section 12 (1) of
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015. Section 12 (1) of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015, is quoted as under :-

"12. Bail to a person who is
apparently a child alleged to be in
conflict with law. - (1) When any person,
who is apparently a child and is alleged to
have committed a bailable or non-bailable
offence, is apprehended or detained by the
police or appears or brought before a
Board, such person shall, notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or
in any other law for the time being in
force, be released on bail with or without
surety or placed under the supervision of a
probation officer or under the care of any
fit person:

Provided that such person shall
not be so released if there appears
reasonable grounds for believing that the
release is likely to bring that person into
association with any known criminal or
expose the said person to moral, physical
or psychological danger or the person's
release would defeat the ends of justice
and the Board shall record the reasons for
denying the bail and circumstances that
led to such a decision."

4. It is further submitted by learned
counsel for the revisionist that the Juvenile
Justice Board as well as learned Sessions
Judge have not taken into account the
report of District Probation Officer. In the
report, no adverse remark has been made
pertaining to revisionist. It is also not
mentioned in the report of District
Probation Officer that in case revisionist is
released on bail his release is likely to
bring him into association with any known
criminal or expose him to moral, physical
or psychological danger or his release
would defeat the ends of justice. Learned
counsel for the revisionist has submitted
that the finding recorded by the Probation
Officer is baseless and without any reason.
Revisionist has no criminal history to his
credit. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has placed reliance upon a case law
reported in [2018 (1) JIC 357 (All)] :
2 All. Manish Kanaujia Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
33
Rahul Patel Vs. State of U.P. & another,
in which this Court in paragraph 8 has held
as under:-

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

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has further relied upon the case law
reported in [2018 (3) JIC 48 (All)] :
Gurjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. &
another, wherein in paragraphs 17 & 18
the Hon'ble Court has held as under :-

"17. A perusal of that evidence
would show that it cannot be said that the
offence, in fact, has been committed so
daringly and outwardly that enlarging the
revisionist on bail would defeat the ends of
justice. In this connection the guidance of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Om Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan and
another, (2012) 5 SCC 201 may be
quoted:

"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."

18. There is no such finding or
otherwise any material on record that the
revisionist has committed the offence that
indicates more towards the matured skill
of an accused than an act of the child as
held by their Lordships in Om Prakash
(supra). There is nothing about the
manner and method of the commission of
the offence that indicates a well planned
design. In fact, not much about the
circumstances under which the alleged
offence took place, where it was committed
and by whom, has been dwelt upon. This
matter is to be determined in the pending
case before the Juvenile Justice Board.
34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
There is, however, in the opinion of the
Court no such ground disentitling the
juvenile to bail under the proviso to
Section 12(1) of the Act so as to keep him
deprived of the company of his family
which is the best school for any child. It is
also not the case that it is a family of
criminals
and
delinquents.
The
revisionist's family is a normal, average
and
happy
family
as
the
social
investigation report would show, though
they may not be an affluent family."

6. It is also submitted that the
revisionist is in custody since 24.04.2019
and the trial may take some more time.

7.

In
view
of
the
above
circumstances, the revision is allowed.
Impugned orders dated 20.09.2019, passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.1/Special Judge, POCSO Act,
Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Appeal
No.37 of 2019 (Manish Kanaujia Vs. State
of U.P. & another) and order dated
30.07.2019, passed by the Juvenile Justice
Board,
Ambedkar
Nagar
in
Bail
Application No. 22 of 2019, relating to
Crime No. 65 of 2019, under Sections 363,
366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act,
Police Station Bhiti, District Ambedkar
Nagar are hereby set aside. The bail
application of the revisionist is allowed.

8. Let the revisionist (Manish
Kanaujia)
through
his
natural
guardian/father Ram Bakash be released
on bail in Crime No. 65 of 2019, under
Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC & Section 3/4
POCSO Act, Police Station Bhiti, District
Ambedkar Nagar on his father furnishing a
personal bond with two sureties in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile
Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar, subject to
the following conditions:

(i)
that
the
natural
guardian/father 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 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) that the father will further
furnish an undertaking to the effect that
the juvenile will be placed in a school and
encouraged to his studies and not allow to
waste his time in unproductive and mere
recreational pursuits.

(iii) The revisionist and his
father will report to the District Probation
Officer on the first Monday of every
month with effect from the first Monday
of the month next after release from
custody, and, if during any calendar month
the first Monday falls on a holiday then on
the following working day.

(iv)
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,
Ambedkar
Nagar
on
such
periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice
Board determines.
----------
(2020)02ILR A34
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE NAHEED ARA MOONIS, J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-IX, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 23385 of 2019

Sher Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents