# Minor 'X' Through His Natural Guardian Father 'Y' Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 683
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 71 of 2022
- **Bench:** Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/minor-x-through-his-natural-guardian-father-y-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47775
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Child) Act, 2015 - Sections
12, 12(1) & 102 - Protection of Children
From Sexual Offences Act,2012 - Sections
3 & 4 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections
376
&
506,
-
Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973 - Section - 161, - Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of
Atrocities Act, 1989 - Section- 3(2)(5) :-
Criminal Revision - against rejection of Bail
Application & appeal - FIR - offence of rape &
threat to a 8 years of girl child - while rejecting
the Bail of accused (minor) revisionist the
Juvenile board observed that, the provisions of
Juvenile Justice Act do not mean that once the
person is adjudged juvenile, he is entitled to
bail, irrespective of all other factors - court firm
that, when considering the bail, the matter is to
be assessed from the angle of the - (i) principle
of best interest of the juvenile, (ii) angle of the
demand of justice of both sides and (iii) also
concern of the society at large - the law needs
constant U.P.dation of meaning to achieve the
goals set in the St.ment of objects and reasons
at the time of enactment - thus, release shall
defeat the ends of justice - impugned orders
cannot be faulted and the revision is liable to be
dismissed. (Para - 13, 14, 15)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

10 All. Minor 'X' Through His Natural Guardian Father 'Y' Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
683

37. Let a copy of this judgment be
sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kannauj, henceforth, for doing the needful
in terms of this judgment.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 683
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 71 of 2022

Minor 'X' Through His Natural Guardian
Father 'Y' ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Akhilesh Bharti, Sri Narendra
Singh

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Child) Act, 2015 - Sections
12, 12(1) & 102 - Protection of Children
From Sexual Offences Act,2012 - Sections
3 & 4 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections
376
&
506,
-
Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973 - Section - 161, - Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of
Atrocities Act, 1989 - Section- 3(2)(5) :-
Criminal Revision - against rejection of Bail
Application & appeal - FIR - offence of rape &
threat to a 8 years of girl child - while rejecting
the Bail of accused (minor) revisionist the
Juvenile board observed that, the provisions of
Juvenile Justice Act do not mean that once the
person is adjudged juvenile, he is entitled to
bail, irrespective of all other factors - court firm
that, when considering the bail, the matter is to
be assessed from the angle of the - (i) principle
of best interest of the juvenile, (ii) angle of the
demand of justice of both sides and (iii) also
concern of the society at large - the law needs
constant U.P.dation of meaning to achieve the
goals set in the St.ment of objects and reasons
at the time of enactment - thus, release shall
defeat the ends of justice - impugned orders
cannot be faulted and the revision is liable to be
dismissed. (Para - 13, 14, 15)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Amit kUmar Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Revision
No. 2732/2010 - decided on 14.09.2010

2. Kanchan Sonkar Vs St. of U.P. - Criminal
Revision No. 1266 of 2020 decided on
01.12.2020

3. Amit Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Revision No.
1852 of 2015, decided on 16.03.2016

4. Prakash Vs St. of Rajj. - 2006 Crl. L.J. 1373,

5. Vijendra Kumar Mali Vs St. of U.P. - 2003 (1)
JIC 103,

6. Om Prakash Vs St. of Raj. & anr., (2012) 5
SCC 201,

7. Mangesh Rajbhar Vs St. of U.P. & anr., 2018
(2) ACR 1941.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna
Sharma, J.)

1. It appears that name of the
revisionist-juvenile has been disclosed in
the memo of revision. This fault from the
side of revisionist escaped detection by the
Registry. The concerned Officer of the
Registry is directed to delete the name of
the revisionist-minor from the title of the
revision as fed and shown in the data on
official website and represent him as
"Minor
'X'
Through
His
Natural
Guardian Father 'Y".

2.

Heard
Sri
Pramod
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
684 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
revisionist and Sri Avanish Kumar holding
brief of Sri Narendra Singh, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 2-the
informant and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned
AGA for the State.

3. This criminal revision has been
filed with the prayer to set aside the order
of the Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj
dated 13.09.2021 and the order of the
Additional
District
and
Sessions
Judge/Special
Judge,
POSCO
Act,
Allahabad
passed
on
30.10.2021
in
Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2021 affirming
the order of the Juvenile Justice Board,
Prayagraj and declining bail to the juvenile
in a matter arising out of Case Crime No.
134 of 2021 under Sections 376, 506 IPC,
3/4 of POSCO Act and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST
Act, Police Station-Shankargarh, DistrictPrayagraj with further prayer to admit him
to bail.

4. The submissions of the revisionist is
that the juvenile who was found to be of the
age of 15 years 8 months and 14 days on the
date of the incident, by the Juvenile Justice
Board vide order dated 26.08.2021, is lodged
in an observation home since 01.05.2021 and
that the impugned orders have been passed in
complete disregard of the provisions of
Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act;
there has been no material before the Juvenile
Justice Board or the appellate Court to arrive
at a conclusion that in case the juvenile is
released on bail, he shall be exposed to
physical, moral and psychological danger and
that his release shall not be in the best interest
of the juvenile himself; the impugned orders
being arbitrary and contrary to law and are
liable to be set aside.

5. As per the version of the FIR, a six
years old daughter of the informant had
gone to gather unripe mangoes from the
orchard belonging to Sarjo Master where
the juvenile was also present. He dragged
the victim to an abandoned hut, sexually
assaulted her and also threatened and
instructed her not to disclose the incident to
anybody
else.
The
victim,
however,
disclosed the whole matter to her mother,
thereafter, the FIR Case Crime No. 0134 of
2021 under Sections 376, 506 IPC, 3/4 of
POCSO Act and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act was
registered same day at 23.47 hours i.e.,
within seven hours of the occurrence which
took place on 30.04.2021 at 17.30 hours in
the evening.

6. As per the statement of the victim
under Section 161, when she went to gather
some
mangoes
from
the
place
of
occurrence i.e., mango orchard, the juvenile
taking advantage of the absence of any
other in the vicinity, forcibly dragged her to
an abandoned hut and ravished her after
removing her clothes. After the act, he
made her wear the clothes again and sent
her back to her house after threatening her
and instructing her not to disclose anything
to anybody else. As per the medical
examination report, she was bleeding from
her private parts and there was also rapture
of hymen and tear in labia minora and
fourchette introitus. She was also bleeding
from her vagina and perineum. As per the
report of the C.M.O., she was merely 8
years old at the time of the occurrence.

7. First and foremost contention from
the side of revisionist is that gravity of the
offence is not relevant consideration for
refusing bail to the juvenile as has been
held by a coordinate Bench of this Court in
Criminal Revision No. 2732 of 2010
(Amit Kumar vs. State of U.P.) decided
on 14.09.2010, Criminal Revision No.
1266 of 2020 (Kanchan Sonkar vs. State
of U.P.) decided on 01.12.2020, Criminal
10 All. Minor 'X' Through His Natural Guardian Father 'Y' Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
685
Revision No. 1852 of 2015 (Amit vs. State
of U.P.) decided on 16.03.2016 and held
by the Apex Court in Prakash vs. State of
Rajasthan, 2006 Cri.L.J. 1373.

8. In Criminal Revision No. 1852 of
2015 (Amit vs. State of U.P.) decided on
16.03.2016, this Court referred to the
earlier judgement in Vijendra Kumar
Mali vs. State of U.P., 2003 (1) J.I.C. 103,
wherein it was observed that in a number of
judgements, it has been categorically held
that bail to the juvenile can only be refused
if one of the grounds as provided in Section
12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, existed;
so far as the ground of gravity is concerned,
it was not covered under the relevant
provisions; if the bail application of the
juvenile was to be considered under the
provisions of Cr.P.C., there would have
been absolutely no necessity for the
enactment of the aforesaid Act. The Section
12 of the Act contained a non-obstante
clause, which indicated that the general
provisions of Cr.P.C. shall not apply.
Therefore, the gravity or seriousness of the
offence should not be taken as an obstacle
or hindrance to refuse the bail to delinquent
juvenile.

9. It is contended that since there
existed no material to justify rejection of bail
on the grounds envisaged in Section 12 of the
Act; the 'child in conflict with law', who has
been in custody for quite some time deserved
to be released on bail otherwise, the purpose
of provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile
Justice Act shall stand defeated; that care of
the juvenile in a child care institution cannot
be preferred over his care in his biological
family.

10. In Om Prakash vs. State of
Rajasthan and another; (2012) 5 SCC 201,
the Apex Court observed that the Juvenile
Justice Act was enacted with a laudable
object of providing a separate forum or a
special court for holding trial of juvenile as it
was felt that child 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. It was further
observed that when an accused is involved in
grave
and
serious
offence
which
he
committed in a well planned manner
reflecting his maturity of mind the court
ought to be more careful. It may be noted that
the Hon'ble Apex Court gave aforesaid view
in the background of facts that age of the
juvenile determined by the courts below was
not free from doubts. In those peculiar
circumstances, the Apex Court commanded
attention of the Courts that where accused
commited grave and heinous offence and
thereafter he attempted to take statutory
shelter under the guise of being a minor, a
casual or cavalier approach while recording
his age, is not acceptable. It was also
observed that the shelter of the principle of
benevolent legislation of the Juvenile Justice
Act is meant for minors, who are innocent
law breakers.

11. All said and done, the nature of
crime where its grave and heinous cannot
be simply passed over. In this context, I
choose to mention the observations made
by a coordinate Bench of this Court in
Mangesh Rajbhar vs. State of U.P. and
Another; 2018 (2) ACR 1941, which reads
as under:-

"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."
686 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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
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."

12. Ordinarily, the merits of the
matter may not be unduly important where
the Courts are inclined to give benefit of
bail as envisaged in Section 12 of the
Juvenile Justice Act. This is not to say that
once a person is found a juvenile, it is
mandatory to grant him bail and that merits
of matter shall have no relevance. In my
view, the nature of the crime and factors
connected thereto never went into oblivion
and this particular aspect have been
usefully illuminated by the Courts time and
again. In fact nature of the offence and
merits of the matter may assume ample
significance when the Court has to form an
opinion about the ends of justice. It may be
noted that the phrase 'ends of justice',
cannot exist in a vacuum. Unarguably and
undeniably, the Courts are under obligation
to address the concerns of both the sides
and strike a delicate balance between
competing and often conflicting demands
of justice of the two sides. When viewing
the matters of bail from this particular
angle of deciphering the ends of justice not
only the nature of crime, but also the
manner
of
commission
thereof,
methodology applied, the mental state, the
extent
of
involvement,
the
evidence
available shall be the factors to reckon
with. To my mind, from this particular
point of view, no artificial line can be
drawn to differentiate cases of juvenile
10 All. Minor 'X' Through His Natural Guardian Father 'Y' Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
687
above 16 years from those who are found
just below 16, in ordinary circumstances.
Incidentally, the accused in this case was
found marginally below 16.

13. Following facts are important in
the present matter before me:-

Firstly, the nature of the crime
that a little innocent girl of tender age had
gone to an orchard not apprehending
something untoward may happen to her.
Obviously, she was not in a position to
physically resist a sufficiently grown up
boy, who over-powered her and was made
to undergo ordeal of such atrocious crime
in a merciless manner. The kind of injuries,
she sustained, is enough to shake once
conscience. The act in itself indicates the
physical and mental maturity of the
juvenile and also impels this Court to think
about the need for professional counseling
with the object of inculcating in him a
healthy mind when he grows up into an
adult. Therefore, secondly, in my view, he
actually needs strict supervision and
intervention of the authorities as per the
scheme of the Act for his own welfare and
well being. Thirdly, the aim and object of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 cannot be achieved if
crimes committed by the juveniles are not
viewed from the angle of concerns of the
society at large as well.

14. I am of the firm view that when
considering the bail, the matter is to be
assessed from the angle of the (i) principle
of best interest, i.e., welfare of the juvenile,
(ii) angle of the demands of justice of both
the sides and (iii) also the concern of the
society at large. He grows into an adult
with a healthy mind inside, is in the larger
interest of the society. The aim and object
of the Act cannot be achieved unless the
statutory provisions are not interpreted
according to the growing needs of the
times. The laws need constant updation of
meanings to achieve the goals set in the
statement of objects and reasons at the time
of enactment.

15. The Juvenile Justice Board did not
find it a fit case to release the juvenile on
bail, considering the fact that his act must
have caused a lot of outrage in the public
and local people of the village including the
family of the victim and trauma to the
victim herself. The Juvenile Justice Board
observed that the provisions of Juvenile
Justice Act do not mean that once the
person is adjudged juvenile, he is entitled
to bail, irrespective of all other factors. The
Board has taken into consideration the
social investigation report submitted by the
District Probation Officer. Likewise, the
learned appellate Court expressed its
opinion that in case the juvenile is released
and brought back to his family, he will fall
in the same company and environs where
he used to be earlier and from where he
needs to be protected and rescued, hence,
the demands of the best interest of the child
required that he should not be released to
his family members. Moreover, the learned
courts below took into consideration the
demands of justice of the victim's family
and came to a conclusion that his release
shall defeat the ends of justice. I am of the
view that the orders of the learned
Appellate Court and the Juvenile Justice
Board, thus cannot be faulted and the
revision is liable to be dismissed as it lacks
merits.

16. The revision is, accordingly,
dismissed.

17. The Court/concerned Board is
directed to expedite the hearing and
688 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conclude the same at the earliest without
getting
influenced
by
any
of
the
observations made in this order.

18. Copy of the order be certified to
the Court concerned

Note- Copy of the order be sent to
concerned Section of the Registry for
immediate compliance of direction given
in Para-1 of the order.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 688
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 568 of 2022

Kalim ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Santosh Kumar Chaubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri J.B. Singh

Civil Law - Juvenile Justice Act,2015-
Section 102-impugned order determined the
age by report of Medical Board and not by
school certificates-school certificate records the
age as 14 years and 12 days on the date of
occurrence-informant rebutted the date of birth
and produced copy of pariwar register and
driving license- school leaving certificate quite
doubtful-no underlying document to record his
age at the time of admission-Court below rightly
embarked on an inquiry and radiological age
was ordered.

Revision dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:
1. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Babloo Singh Vs St. of
U.P. & Uday Pratap Singh; 2022 (6) ADJ 85 (LB)

2. Buddhu Vs St. of U.P.; (2021) 12 ILR A144

3. Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs St. of M. P.;
(2012) 9 SCC 750

4. Rashipal Singh Solanki Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2021 (11) ADJ 489

5. Parag Bhati Vs St. of U.P.; (2016) 12 SCC 744

6. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs St. of U.P. & anr.;
(2019) 12 SCC 370

7. Abuzar Hossain Vs St. of W. B.l; (2012) 10
SCC 489

8. Ashwani Kumar Saxena Vs St. of M.P.; (2012)
9 SCC 750

9. Babloo Pasi Vs St. of Jharkhand; (2008) 13
SCC 133

10. Arnit Das Vs St. of Bihar; (2000) 5 SCC 488

11. Jitendra Ram Vs St. of Jharkhand; (2006) 9
SCC 428
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Chaubey,
learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri J.B.
Singh, learned counsel for the respondent
no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been
filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile
Justice Act, 2015 with a prayer to set aside
the order of the Juvenile Justice Board
dated
26.03.2021
passed
in
age
determination inquiry in Misc. Application
No. 43 of 2020 arising out of Crime No.
439 of 2020 under Sections 302, 120-B
IPC, Police Station Hasanpur, DistrictAmroha (J.P. Nagar) with a further prayer
to set aside the order passed in criminal