# Ram Kishan Yadav (Minor) Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 220
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 169 of 2020
- **Bench:** Mrs. Saroj Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-kishan-yadav-minor-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47077
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

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

## Text

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
7 All. Ram Kishan Yadav (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
221
information the complainant reached on the
spot and recognized the dead body as of his
brother Sunny Gautam. After cremation on
07.05.2019 he went to lodge the First
Information Report.

4. Investigation was made. During the
investigation the name of this revisionist
came into light on the basis of confessional
statement of co-accused Anil Kumar Yadav
whose name was disclosed by the witnesses
with whom the deceased was last seen.

5. The revisionist claimed the juvenility
and was declared juvenile by the Juvenile
Justice Board vide order dated 22.10.2019.
His age was found 15 years 7 months and 5
days
on
the
date
of
incident.
The
revisionist/juvenile
moved
his
bail
application before Juvenile Justice Board,
which was rejected by the Principal
Magistrate of the Board on 21.11.2019.
Against that order an appeal was preferred by
the juvenile under Section 101 of the Act of
2015, that too was dismissed by Additional
Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO (The
Protection
of
Children
from
Sexual
Offences), Act Sultanpur per order dated
18.12.2019. Being aggrieved of the above
order and judgment the juvenile preferred this
revision.

6. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned
counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ashwani
Kumar, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the State. None turned up on
behalf of opposite party No.2, despite of
sufficient service of notice.

7.

Learned
counsel
for
the
juvenile/revisionist
submitted
that
the
impugned judgment of the appellate court
and order of the Juvenile Board have been
passed in transgression of the settled law
relating to Juveniles. The bail for juvenile can
be denied only in three conditions mentioned
in the provisio to Section 12(1) of the Act, of
2015, not otherwise. Juvenile was not named
in the F.I.R., his name came into light on the
basis of confessional statement made by coaccused who was named by the witnesses in
their statements. Another co-accused Rahul
Yadav, who was an adult whose name also
came into light on the basis of the
confessional statement made by the same coaccused Anil Kumar Yadav was granted bail
by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 1692 of 2019.

8. Learned counsel further submitted
that there is no material on record to bring the
case of the juvenile/revisionist under the
exceptions given in Section 12 of the Act of
2015, hence the judgment and order passed
by both the courts below deserve to be setaside, as they are against the law.

9. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand
opposed the contentions of the counsel for
the revisionist and submitted that the
revisionist/juvenile alongwith other coaccused persons murdered the brother of
the complainant and threw the dead body in
the forest to destroy the evidence. Hence
this revision should be dismissed. However
the learned A.G.A. did not dispute the
parity with co-accused Rahul Yadav.

10. Considered the rival submissions
and perused the record. Section 12 (1) of
the Act of 2015, in this regard lays down 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
222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

11. Thus it is law that a bail application
of a juvenile can be rejected only :-

(i) If there appears reasonable
ground for believing that the release is likely
to bring the juvenile into association with any
known criminal; or,

(ii) expose the juvenile to moral,
physical or psychological danger; or,

(iii) release of the juvenile would
defeat the ends of justice.

12. In the present matter the Principal
Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board, came to
the conclusion that if the juvenile /applicant
was released on bail then it would cause
moral, physical and psychological danger to
him, and ends of justice stand defeated.

13. Legal position is that, for a juvenile
in conflict with law bail is the Rule. The bail
application of a juvenile can be rejected
exceptionally.

14. The Appellate Court while
confirming the order of the Principal
Magistrate,
Juvenile
Justice
Board
concluded
that
the
matter
of
the
applicant/juvenile
falls
within
the
exceptions given in the proviso to Section
12(1). If he is released on bail, then he will
come in association with "unknown"
criminals which will cause moral, physical
and psychological danger to the juvenile.
He also concluded that release will defeat
the ends of justice and dismissed the appeal
of the juvenile.

15. In the report of District Probation
Officer available on record as Annexure
No.9 no previous criminal antecedents of
juvenile have been mentioned. The family
status is average. It has been mentioned
that step brother of the applicant Anil
Yadav and one another Rahul were also
accused in crime and they both are detained
in District Jail of Sultanpur. The possibility
of committing the crime again by the
juvenile cannot be ruled out. There is need
of better guardianship for the moral
upliftment of the juvenile. No bad habit of
the juvenile has been mentioned in the
report. Further as pointed out by the
revisionist counsel that an adult co-accused
Rahul Yadav whose case stands on similar
footing as his name also came into light on
the basis of confessional statement made by
co-accused Anil Kumar Yadav has been
admitted to bail by the co-ordinate Bench
of this Court vide order dated 05.11.2019 in
Criminal Appeal No. 1692 of 2019.

16. The fact that apart from juvenility
the case of this revisionist stands on similar
footing as that of co-accused Rahul Yadav,
has not been disputed by the learned
Additional Government Advocate. If an
adult offender having similar role is
enlarged on bail, then certainly juvenile in
7 All. Ram Kishan Yadav (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
223
conflict with law on the same charge and
evidence would also be entitled to bail.

17. In Dharmendra (Juvenile) Vs.
State of U.P. and others in Criminal
Revision No. 141 of 2017 the co-ordinate
Bench of Allahabad High Court has
observed 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 of 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 in 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 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."

18. There is no dispute that revisionist has
been declared juvenile. His age was found 15
years, 7 months and 5 days, on the date of
incident. Co-accused Rahul Yadav (adult)
whose case stands on similar footing has
already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate
Bench (supra). If an adult offender is granted
bail, whose case stands on similar footing as of
juvenile, then the juvenile apart from special
provisions for bail is also entitled for bail. Even
in the report of District Probation Officer, there
is no specific mention that if the juvenile
released on bail, he will come into association
of "known criminals". District Probation
Officer has mentioned in the report that juvenile
needs a better guardianship. The father of the
juvenile through whom revision has been
224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
preferred has written in his affidavit that the
family members of the revisionist are educated,
well settled and are living peaceful life together.
After release of the revisionist, he shall be living
in custody of his parents and will keep distance
from any kind of moral activities /personalities.

19. In the light of above, discussion the
case of the revisionist/juvenile does not fall in
any of the three exceptions provided under the
proviso to section 12(1) of the Act of 2015, so
as to deprive the juvenile of the liberty of bail.
Hence impugned order passed by Principal
Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board dated
21.11.2019 as well as the judgment and order
dated 18.12.2019 of the appellate court passed
in appeal deserves to be set-aside.

20. Revision is allowed.

21. The order passed by Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board dated
21.11.2019 and judgment dated 18.12.2019
passed by Appellate Court are hereby set-aside.

22. Let the revisionist/juvenile (Ram
Kishan Yadav) be released on bail in Case
Crime No. 208 of 2019, under Sections 302,
201 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST
Act, Police Station Kudwar, District Sultanpur
and be given in custody of his father on his
furnishing a personal bond and two solvent
sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate of
Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur subject to
following conditions :-

(i) That the father of the juvenile
shall 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 he will
ensure that the juvenile do not repeat the
offence.

(ii) The father will further furnish an
undertaking to the effect that he will encourage
the juvenile to pursue his studies.

(iii) The revisionist Ram Kishan
Yadav and his fatehr Rajendra Prasad Yadav
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, Sultanpur on such
periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board
determines.

(v) The party shall file a 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 the 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 A224
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J.

Criminal Revision No. 474 of 2020

Aman Kashyap ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist: