# Sanjay Chaudhary (minor) Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 972
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-08-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 182 of 2020
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-chaudhary-minor-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46089
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 401 r/w Section
397 & Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections
363,366, 376,342 & Protection of Children
from Sexual Offence Act, 2012-Section 3⁄4
& Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children)
Act,
2015-Section
102application -rejection of bail- issue of
granting bail regarding revisionist has
been wrongly decided by the trial court
and application has been rejected even
after giving specific finding in favour of
accused/revisionist by district probation
officer-trial
court
has
unnecessarily
entered into hypertechnical things while
rejecting the application for bail which is
contrary to procedure provided under the
Act-the report of the District Probation
Officer is in favour of revisionist and the
family members of the revisionist had no
criminal
history-on
enquiry
from
neighbours
it
transpired
that
the
revisionist had no criminal proclivityhence, the revisionist should be enlarged
on
bail.(Para
1
to
15)
9 All. Sanjay Chaudhary (minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
973
B. Perusal of Section 12 of the Act of 2015
makes it clear that ordinarily, the bail has
to be granted to the juvenile and the same
can be rejected only when it appears to
the court concerned that either of three
conditions laid down in this provision are
in existence. The order of the juvenile
justice board and the sessions court go to
show that while passing the same both
the
courts
below
have
not
at
all
considered the report of Probation Officer
in a correct manner and rejected the
application of the applicant for his release
on bail in a mechanical manner. (Para
9,10)

The Revision is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

972 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court it was held that strict adherence to
the provision of Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act and Rules framed thereunder is essential for safe-guarding the
interest of consumers of articles of food.
Stringent laws will have no meaning if
offenders could get away with mere fine
and therefore, order of sentence by the
Trial Court was upheld. Further for a
period of three months accused was given
liberty to move appropriate Government for
commutation of sentence and accordingly,
the impugned order of High Court was set
aside.

19. It was argued by learned counsel
for
the
accused-revisionist
that
the
revisionist-accused has now turned 58
years old approximately by now and,
therefore, it would be very painful for him
to go to jail and serve out the remaining
sentence at this far distant point of time,
therefore, in view of the judgment of Apex
Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs.
Jagdish Prasad, 2009 Law Suit (SC) 694,
this Court deems it proper to grant him
three months time from today to approach
appropriate
Government
annexing
a
certified copy of this order to seek
remission under Section 433(d) Cr.P.C., if
so advised.

20. If the revisionist files any such
application for grant of remission by the
Government before the Trial Court with its
receipt then the Trial Court shall await the
outcome of the said application which shall
be informed by the revisionist to the Trial
Court also immediately. If he is granted
remission by the Government, the Trial
Court shall abide by it, failing which the
accused-revisionist shall be taken into
custody after expiry of the period of 3
months from today, to serve out the
remaining sentence.

21. Office is directed to send a copy
of this order to the Trial Court immediately
for compliance
----------
(2020)09ILR A972
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.08.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 182 of 2020

Sanjay Chaudhary (minor) ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Bipin Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 401 r/w Section
397 & Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections
363,366, 376,342 & Protection of Children
from Sexual Offence Act, 2012-Section 3⁄4
& Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children)
Act,
2015-Section
102application -rejection of bail- issue of
granting bail regarding revisionist has
been wrongly decided by the trial court
and application has been rejected even
after giving specific finding in favour of
accused/revisionist by district probation
officer-trial
court
has
unnecessarily
entered into hypertechnical things while
rejecting the application for bail which is
contrary to procedure provided under the
Act-the report of the District Probation
Officer is in favour of revisionist and the
family members of the revisionist had no
criminal
history-on
enquiry
from
neighbours
it
transpired
that
the
revisionist had no criminal proclivityhence, the revisionist should be enlarged
on
bail.(Para
1
to
15)
9 All. Sanjay Chaudhary (minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
973
B. Perusal of Section 12 of the Act of 2015
makes it clear that ordinarily, the bail has
to be granted to the juvenile and the same
can be rejected only when it appears to
the court concerned that either of three
conditions laid down in this provision are
in existence. The order of the juvenile
justice board and the sessions court go to
show that while passing the same both
the
courts
below
have
not
at
all
considered the report of Probation Officer
in a correct manner and rejected the
application of the applicant for his release
on bail in a mechanical manner. (Para
9,10)

The Revision is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Juvenile accused Prem Kumar Thru His Father
Kashi Ram Pasi Vs St. of U.P. & anr., (2019) 2
JIC 296 All

2. Sanjay Chaurasia Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,(2006)
55 ACC 480 Alld

3. Manglesh Rajbhar Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
(2018) 2 JIC 359 All

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. This revision under Section 102 of
the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act') has been preferred by Sanjay
Chaudhary (minor) through his father,
natural guardian for being enlarged on bail
in Case Crime No.186 of 2019 u/s 363,
366, 376, 342 IPC and Section 3/4
Protection of Children from Sexual Offence
Act,
2012,
P.S.
Thodhibari,
district
Maharajganj.

2. The Juvenile Justice Board,
Maharajganj by order dated 29.11.2019 in
Bail Application No.76 of 2019 has
rejected the bail application. The Sessions
Judge,
Maharajganj
by
order
dated
20.12.2019 in Criminal Appeal No.62 of
2019 has dismissed the appeal upholding
the order passed by the Juvenile Justice
Board.

3. The facts giving rise to the instant
revision in brief are that a First Information
Report was lodged on 14.9.2019 at 16:40
hour by opposite party no.2 Virendra
Chaudhary alleging that on 22.8.2019
between 4-5 hour, the revisionist enticed
away his minor daughter Km. Gunja aged
16 years; that when he went to the house of
the revisionist to complain to his parents,
they abused him and also threatened to kill
him; that he made serious attempts to
search out his daughter, but when she could
not be found, he lodged the First
Information Report in question. The police
got the statement of the victim recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 5.10.2019, in
which she stated that she was married to
one Sonu in May, 2016; that her gaunah
had not taken place; that the accused
belongs to her village; that the accused took
her to his bua's place at Nautanava; that
they kept roaming from one place to
another for about 10-15 days; that the
accused established physical relationship
with her; that she was released only after
her father lodged the First Information
Report. The police submitted charge sheet
against the revisionist u/s 363, 366, 376,
342 IPC and Section 3/4 Protection of
Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.

4. The Juvenile Justice Board, after
taking evidence, by order dated 19.11.2019,
declared the accused a juvenile in conflict
with law as envisaged under Section 2 (13)
of the Act.

5. Counsel for the revisionist
submitted that the charges against the
revisionist
are
absolutely
false
and
974 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fabricated; that there was no credible evidence
against the revisionist. The revisionist and the
prosecutrix were in love with each other. She
was married with one Sonu against her will;
that she wanted to marry the revisionist; that
they had also applied before the Marriage
Officer, Maharajganj for court marriage; that
the relationship between them was consensual;
that the prosecutrix is major aged about 20
years; that her husband had applied for divorce
by filing Suit No.491 of 2019 Sonu Chaudhary
Vs. Smt. Gunja Devi on 11.10.2019 in the
court of Principal Judge, Family Court,
Maharajganj
on
the
ground
of
illicit
relationship with the revisionist. It is
vehemently submitted that there was no
reliable evidence that may bring the case of the
juvenile revisionist within the exceptions
carved out under Section 12 (1) of the Act;
that the only evidence was the report of the
District Probation Officer, which was in
favour of the revisionist; that the said report
was based on enquiry made by the District
Probation Officer from members of the family
and neighbours whose statements were also
recorded, but the Juvenile Justice Board
ignored the statement of the neighbours
recorded by the District Probation Officer in
not relying on the said report and thus,
committed a manifest error of law; that the
Juvenile Justice Board on pure assumptions,
without even an iota of evidence, held that in
case the revisionist is enlarged on bail, there is
likelihood
of
his
absconding
to
the
neighbouring country Nepal on mere saying of
the Investigating Officer. The appellate court
committed the same mistake and without
referring to any evidence held on pure
conjectures, that the release of the revisionist
on bail would defeat the ends of justice.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A.
submitted that the revisionist has been
charged of serious offence committed
against a minor girl and in case he is
released on bail, there is every likelihood of
his absconding to the neighbouring country
and that it would also have adverse impact
on the prosecutrix.

7. I have considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and have gone through the material on
record. The provision for bail to a person,
who is apparently a child alleged to be in
conflict with law is governed by Section 12
of the Act, which is reproduced below:-

"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.

(2) When such person having
been apprehended is not released on bail
under sub-section (1) by the officer-incharge of the police station, such officer
shall cause the person to be kept only in an
9 All. Sanjay Chaudhary (minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
975
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."

8. A close reading of the above
provision reveals that bail should invariably
be granted to a juvenile accused alleged to
be in conflict with law unless his case falls
under one of the exceptions engrafted by
the proviso to sub-section (1). In other
words, a bail to a juvenile accused shall not
be granted "if there appear reasonable
ground 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." It is also well settled now that the
gravity of offence or its seriousness could
not be made sole ground divorced from the
legislative intent in denying bail to a
juvenile
in
conflict
with
law.
The
legislature
itself
has
enumerated
the
exceptional
reasons
where
discretion
should not be exercised in favour of the
juvenile and prayer for bail has to be
rejected. The said power should be
exercised with due care and caution only
when there is some reliable material on
record which justifies bringing the case
within one of the exceptions. It is the
burden of the prosecution to bring such
material on record. In the absence of such
material, the bail cannot be rejected on
assumptions.
Some
of
the
decisions
propounding law on the point are extracted
below, for ready reference:-

9. In Juvenile accused Prem Kumar
Through His Father Kashi Ram Pasi Vs.
State of U.P. and another, 2019 (2) JIC
296 (All), it has been held as under:-

"10. Perusal of Section 12 of the
Act of 2015 makes it clear that ordinarily,
the bail has to be granted to the juvenile
and the same can be rejected only when it
appears to the court concerned that either
of three conditions laid down in this
provision are in existence. The orders of
the Juvenile Justice Board and the Sessions
Court go to show that while passing the
same both the courts below have not at all
considered the report of Probation Officer
in a correct manner and rejected the
application of the applicant for his release
on bail in a mechanical manner simply by
reproducing few words of Section 12 of the
Act of 2015. Further the courts below have
presumed many things of their own, which
is not part of record of Probation Officer.
These aforesaid two orders passed by the
Courts below do not stand on the
touchstone
of
the
relevant
legal
provisions."

10. In Sanjay Chaurasia Vs. State of
U.P. and another, 2006 (55) ACC 480
(Alld), the Court held:-

"10. In case of the refusal of the
bail,
some
reasonable
grounds
for
believing abovementioned exceptions must
be brought before the court concerned by
976 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the prosecution but in the present case, no
such ground for believing any of the
abovementioned
exception
has
teen
brought by the prosecution before the
Juvenile Justice Board and appellate court.
The appellate court dismissed the appeal
only oh the presumption that due to
commission of this of fence, 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 bell 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 27.6.2005
passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Meerut and order dated 28.5.2005 passed
by the Juvenile Justice Board are Illegal
and are hereby set aside".

11. In Manglesh Rajbhar Vs. State
of U.P. and another, 2018 (2) JIC 359
(All), it is held as follows:-

"8. Turning to the requirements
of recording reasons and spelling out those
circumstances where bail is denied to a
child as postulated in the proviso to Section
12 (1) of the Act, the impugned order
passed by the Board does no more than
paraphrase the provisions of the statute. It
does not record with reference to evidence
available findings on the parameters
mentioned in the proviso to Section 12 (1)
of the Act where bail may be refused on
facts and evidence emerging in the present
case. An echoing and recitation of the
statutory provisions of the proviso to
Section 12 (1) of the Act is certainly not in
the opinion of this Court the requirement of
the law which the Board are charged to
fulfill while dealing with a child's plea for
bail."

12. It transpires from the material
brought on record that there is nothing
adverse against the revisionist in the social
enquiry report submitted by the District
Probation Officer. In fact, this report is
more or less in favour of the revisionist, as
it clearly mentions that the family members
of the revisionist had no criminal history;
they
are
peace
loving
persons;
the
revisionist had maintained cordial relations
with the family members, friends and
neighbours;
that
on
enquiry
from
neighbours it transpired that the revisionist
had no criminal proclivity; that the
revisionist was in love with the prosecutrix
and that they ran away to Delhi, resulting in
arrest of the revisionist. The conclusion
drawn by the District Probation Officer in
his report is as follows:-

i-
HkkoukRed
dkj.k
- lkekU;
ii- 'kkjhfjd
fLFkfr

- 'kkjhfjd :i ls LoLFk crk;k
x;k rFkk
iii- cqf)eRrk

- Ekufld :i cqf)eku Hkh Fkk
iv- Lekftd
,oa
vkfFkZd
dkj.k
- Lekt ds yksxkas dk izfr /kkj.kk
vPNh ikbZ x;h vkSj vkfFkZd
:i ls detksj ik;k x;k
v- LkeL;kvksa
ds lq>k,
x, dkj.k

-
vi- vijk/k ds
dkj.kksa@
dkj.kksa esa
-
9 All. Sanjay Chaudhary (minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
977
va'knk;h
dkjdksa dh
fo'ys".k
vii ijke'kZ
fd;s x;s
fo'ks"kKksa
dh jk;
-
Vii
i

ifjoh{kk
vf/kdkjh
@cky
dY;k.k
vf/kdkjh
@
lkekftd
dk;ZdrkZ
}kjk
iquokZl ds
lEcU/k esa
flQkfj'k
- eqgYysokfl;ksa] laj{kdksa vkfn
ls okrkZ ds mijkUr Kkr gqvk
fd fd'kksj ds lkFkh laxh ,oa
ifjokj
ds
lnL;
vPNs
vkpj.k ,oa O;ogkj ds gSa vkSj
fd'kksj rFkk muds ifjokj ds
fdlh lnL; dk lEcU/k fdlh
vijk/k ;k vkijkf/kd izo`fRr
ds O;fDr;ksa ls ugha FkkA
fd'kksj dks lkekftd ,oa
uSfrd [krjs dh laHkkouk ugha
gSA fd'kksjkoLFkk ds izek.k vkSj
foijhr fyax ds izfr vkd"kZ.k
ds dkj.k ?kVuk ?kfVr gqbZA
vr% fd'kksj dks ekrk&firk ds
}kjk
mfpr
fu;a=.k
,oa
laj{k.k dh vko';drk gSA

13. The Juvenile Justice Board in its
impugned order as well as the appellate
authority have recorded finding in favour
of the revisionist that there is no likelihood
of his coming into association with any
known criminal or risk of exposing him to
moral, physical or psychological danger.
However, in so far as the Juvenile Justice
Board is concerned, it had proceeded to
discard the report of District Probation
Officer on the sole ground that the said
report is not based on testimony of any
person. However, the same does not appear
to be correct. Alongwith the said report,
there is joint statement of the neighbours
(Page 41). The State has filed a counter
affidavit and has not denied that the
statement of neighbours was part of the
report of the District Probation Officer or
was not filed before the Board. The second
ground taken by the Board in rejecting the
bail
application
was
that
there
is
apprehension
that
the
revisionist,
if
released on bail, would abscond to Nepal. It
is based on pure conjectures and suggestion
of the Investigating Officer, without
appreciating that the revisionist had no
criminal antecedents nor had company of
any criminal or anti-social elements.
Likewise, the appellate authority placed
undue emphasis on the mental state of the
revisionist in committing the alleged
offence while holding that grant of bail
would defeat the ends of justice, ignoring
the recitals in the report of the District
Probation Officer that the revisionist and
the prosecutrix were having love affair and
they ran away to Delhi. They have also
ignored
from
consideration
the
own
admission of the prosecutrix that she is a
married woman and that her husband had
instituted a suit for divorce, in which it is
alleged that since 15.6.2018 she had
deserted her husband and living with her
parents in the same village in which the
revisionist resides. The entire approach of
the courts below is wholly erroneous in
law, consequently, the impugned orders
dated 29.11.2019 passed by the Principal
Judge, Juvenile Justice Board and the
appellate order dated 20.12.2019 are hereby
quashed.

14. I am satisfied that it is a fit case
where the revisionist should be enlarged on
bail. It is accordingly directed that the
revisionist Sanjay Chaudhary be released
on bail on his father Radhey Shyam
Chaudhary executing a personal bond of
Rs.50,000/- with solvent securities each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board,
Maharajganj on the condition that he will
keep the revisionist in proper custody and
will constantly monitor his conduct and
will report to the Juvenile Justice Board,
978 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Maharajganj once in every three months
regarding the same.

15. In the result, the revision stands
allowed as above.

16. It is made clear that this Court has
not expressed any opinion on merits of the
case and the trial court would be at liberty
to decide the trial strictly in accordance
with law on the basis of evidence so
adduced by the parties.
----------
(2020)09ILR A978
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Criminal Revision No. 620 of 1996

Jai Karan Singh & Anr. ...Revisionists(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Kameshwar Singh, Sri Pratap Kanchan
Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.,

A. Criminal Law - Arms Act, 1959 -
Sections 25, 29, 30 - Mere fact that
witnesses are police personnel does not
mean
that
their
evidence
must
be
rejected, if Courts find it clear, truthful
and creditworthy. (Para 19)

As a matter of rule, there can be no legal
proposition that evidence of police officers,
unless supported by independent witnesses, is
unworthy of acceptance. Non-examination of
independent witness or even presence of such
witness during police raid would cast an added
duty on Court to adopt greater care while
scrutinising the evidence of the police officers. If
the evidence of police officer is found acceptable,
it would be an erroneous proposition that Court
must reject prosecution version solely on the
ground that no independent witness was
examined. (Para 20 to 25)

B. In absence of anything to show that
findings recorded by both the Courts
below are perverse or there is any
misreading or any relevant evidence has
not been examined, there is no reason to
take a different view in this revision - The
case set up by Accused-Revisionists is that the
gun and cartridges were licensed to Jai Karan
Singh, who had gone to attend natural call and,
therefore, a temporary possession was given to
Balbir Singh. This was the explanation given by
Accused-Revisionists and to prove it onus lay
upon them. Defence taken by AccusedRevisionists
has
been
found
untrustworthy and afterthought, as could
not be proved. (Para 27)

Revision dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Pradeep Narayan Madqaonkar & ors. Vs St. of
Mah., (1990) 4 SCC 255 (Para 20)

2. Balbir Singh Vs State, (1996) 11 SCC 139 (Para 21)

3. Paras Ram Vs St. of Hary., (1992) 4 SCC 662
(Para 21)

4. Sama Alana Abdulla Vs St. of Guj., (1996) 1
SCC 427 (Para 21)

5. Anil alias Andya Sadashiv Nandoskar Vs St. of
Mah., (1996) 2 SCC 589 (Para 21)

6.
Suhash
Singh
Thakurshyam
Vs
State
(Through CBI), (1997) 8 SCC 732 (Para 22)

7. St. of U.P. Vs Zakaullah, 1998 Cri. L.J. 863 (Para 23)

8. Girja Prasad Vs St. of M.P., (2007) 7 SCC 625
(Para 24)

Present criminal revision has been filed
against the judgment and order dated
18.04.1996, passed by Special Judge (EC