# Vipin Mali (Minor) Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 228
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 861 of 2019
- **Bench:** Mrs. Saroj Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vipin-mali-minor-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47079
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 - Section 18(1)(g) - orders regarding
child found to be in conflict with law ,
Section 12 - Bail to a person who is
apparently a child alleged to be in conflict
with law, Section 102 - Revision , Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366,
504, 506 - The Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section
7/8 - rejection of bail application of a
juvenile - ground - (i) If there appears
reasonable ground for believing that the
release is likely to bring the juvenile into
association with any known criminal (ii)
expose the juvenile to moral, physical or
psychological danger, or (iii) release of
the juvenile would defeat the ends of
justice - for a juvenile in conflict with law
bail is the Rule - bail application of a
juvenile can be rejected exceptionally.
(Para - 11,14)

F.I.R. registered against revisionist/juvenile and
four
other
co-accused
persons
-
written
complaint - daughter of the complainant aged
about
17
years
-
taken
away
by
revisionist/juvenile - revisionist claimed juvenility
- declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board
- revisionist/juvenile moved bail application
before the Juvenile Justice Board - rejected -
appeal preferred - dismissed by the Appellate
Court - revisionist/juvenile preferred the present
revision. (para - 2,3)

HELD:- There is nothing against the juvenile in
the report, so as to bring his case under the
exceptions provided in proviso to Section 12(1)
of the Act of 2015. The order passed by
7 All. Vipin Mali (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
229
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board and
judgment passed by Appellate Court are setaside. The bail application made on behalf of
the revisionist/juvenile through his mother is
allowed. (Para -15,18)

Criminal Revision allowed. (E-6)

## Text

228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

The juvenile(Aman Kashyap)
shall be released on bail in Case Crime
No.10/2020(supra) and be given in custody
of his mother, on her furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Principal
Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board,
Gonda subject to following conditions :-

i). That the mother 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 further that the
mother will ensure that the juvenile do not
repeat the offence.

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

(iii).
The
revisionist
Aman
Kashyap and his mother Madhuri 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, Gonda on such periodical basis as
the Juvenile Justice Board determines.
----------
(2021)07ILR A228
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J.
Criminal Revision No. 861 of 2019

Vipin Mali (Minor) ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Dhirendra
Kumar
Mishra,
Anil
Kumar
Tiwari, Nitesh Yadav, Ramakar Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate, Gyanendra Mishra

(A) Criminal Law - The Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 - Section 18(1)(g) - orders regarding
child found to be in conflict with law ,
Section 12 - Bail to a person who is
apparently a child alleged to be in conflict
with law, Section 102 - Revision , Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366,
504, 506 - The Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section
7/8 - rejection of bail application of a
juvenile - ground - (i) If there appears
reasonable ground for believing that the
release is likely to bring the juvenile into
association with any known criminal (ii)
expose the juvenile to moral, physical or
psychological danger, or (iii) release of
the juvenile would defeat the ends of
justice - for a juvenile in conflict with law
bail is the Rule - bail application of a
juvenile can be rejected exceptionally.
(Para - 11,14)

F.I.R. registered against revisionist/juvenile and
four
other
co-accused
persons
-
written
complaint - daughter of the complainant aged
about
17
years
-
taken
away
by
revisionist/juvenile - revisionist claimed juvenility
- declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board
- revisionist/juvenile moved bail application
before the Juvenile Justice Board - rejected -
appeal preferred - dismissed by the Appellate
Court - revisionist/juvenile preferred the present
revision. (para - 2,3)

HELD:- There is nothing against the juvenile in
the report, so as to bring his case under the
exceptions provided in proviso to Section 12(1)
of the Act of 2015. The order passed by
7 All. Vipin Mali (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
229
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board and
judgment passed by Appellate Court are setaside. The bail application made on behalf of
the revisionist/juvenile through his mother is
allowed. (Para -15,18)

Criminal Revision allowed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.)

1. This criminal revision has been
preferred by the revisionist/juvenile Vipin
Mali through his mother Smt. Pushpa Devi,
under Section 102 of The Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 (in short the "Act of 2015") against
the judgement dated 30.05.2019 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge Ist,
Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of
2019 as well as order dated 18.04.2019
passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile
Justice Board, Sultanpur in Case Crime No.
No. 541/2018, under Sections 363, 366,
504, 506 Indian Penal Code (in short
"I.P.C.") and Section 7/8 of The Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 (in short "POCSO Act"), Police
Station Lambhua, District Sultanpur.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of
this Criminal Revision are as follows:-

An F.I.R. bearing Case Crime
No.541 of 2018 was registered against the
revisionist/juvenile and four other coaccused persons on the basis of written
complaint moved by the complainant Ram
Bahadur Yadav narrating the facts that on
15.11.2018 at about 9 AM, the daughter of
the complainant aged about 17 years, who
was studying in Class 12th in Sarvodaya
Inter College, Lambhua, Sultanpur went to
her School and when she did not come
back, he made a search for her but could
not know anything. On the next date,
the
complainant
enquired
about
her
daughter in her School, he came to know
that his daughter did not reach the School
on 15.11.2018. Thereafter, the complainant
made a further search and came to know
that Vipin Mali resident of the same village
was also missing from the date of incident.
Arjun and Dheeraj Yadav, who were
friends of Vipin Mali told the complainant
that Vipin Mali has taken away his
daughter. Thereafter, he met with the father
and brother of Vipin Mali, they assured that
his daughter would be brought back within
two days. On 18.11.2018, when the
complainant went to the house of Vipin
Mali to enquire about his daughter, then the
father of the Vipin Mali abused him and
threatened of dire consequences.

3. After investigation, the revisionist
and four other accused persons were
charge-sheeted. The Court concerned took
cognizance of the matter. The revisionist
claimed
juvenility
and
was
declared
juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board,
Sultanpur vide order dated 18.04.2019.
Thereafter, the revisionist/juvenile moved
bail application before the Juvenile Justice
Board, Sultanpur that was rejected vide
order dated 09.05.2019. Against that order
an appeal was preferred under Section 101
of the Act of 2015 and that appeal too was
dismissed by the Appellate Court vide
judgment and order dated 30.05.2019.
Being
aggrieved
with
the
said
order/judgment,
the
revisionist/juvenile
preferred the present revision.

4. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari,
learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri
Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A.
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
State
230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondent. None turned up on behalf of
the opposite party no. 2 despite of service
of notice.

5.

Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist/juvenile
submitted
that
revisionist is in Juvenile Home since
14.02.2019. He was declared juvenile by
the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur vide
order dated 18.04.2019. The age of the
revisionist was found 12 years 11 months
and 5 days at the time of incident. He
further submitted that Juvenile Justice
Board did not consider properly, the report
of District Probation Officer (in short
D.P.O.),
while
deciding
the
bail
application. He further submitted that the
victim lived with the revisionist about three
months, which shows that victim was a
consenting party. Apart from it, according
to provisions of Section 18(1)(g) of the Act
of 2015, the juvenile in conflict with law
can be sent to special home for a period not
exceeding three years. In the present
matter, even if it is presumed that juvenile
has committed a crime, he cannot be kept
in protection home for more than three
years. The revisionist/juvenile already has
spent about 2-1/2 years in judicial custody.
He further submitted that the case of
revisionist/juvenile does not fall under any
of the exceptions provided in Section 12(1)
of the Act of 2015. Learned Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board and the
Appellate
Court
both
have
wrongly
concluded that the release of the juvenile
will bring the juvenile into the contact of
the known criminals and that will expose
the juvenile to moral, physical and
psychological danger and will defeat the
ends of justice.

6. Learned A.G.A. countered the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the revisionist and submitted that the
victim in her statement recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. has made allegations
against the revisionist of committing rape
on her, so the revision of the juvenile
should be dismissed.

7. Considered the rival submissions
and perused the record.

8.

It
is
undisputed
that
revisionist/juvenile is in judicial custody
for a period of about 2-1/2 years.

9. Revisionist was declared juvenile
by Juvenile Justice Board, finding his age
12 years, 11 months and 5 days at the time
of incident.

10. 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
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
7 All. Vipin Mali (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
231
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/revisionist was released on bail
then there is possibility of his coming in
association of known criminals which will
cause moral, physical and psychological
danger to him, and ends of justice stands
defeated.

13. The Appellate Court while
confirming the order of the Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board has also
accepted the conclusion given by the
Principal Magistrate and dismissed the
appeal.

14. 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.

15. In the report of the D.P.O.
available on record, which has been filed
through
supplementary
affidavit,
no
criminal antecedents of juvenile has been
mentioned. The family status is average.
There is nothing against the juvenile in
the report, so as to bring his case under the
exceptions provided in proviso to Section
12(1) of the Act of 2015.

16. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, it appears just to
set aside the order dated 18.04.2019 passed
by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile
Justice Board, Sultanpur as well as the
judgment dated 30.05.2019 passed by the
Appellate Court.

17. The Revision is allowed.

18. The order passed by Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board dated
18.04.2019 and judgment dated 30.05.2019
passed by Appellate Court are set-aside.
The bail application made on behalf of the
revisionist/juvenile through his mother is
allowed.

19. Let the revisionist/juvenile (Vipin
Mali) be released on bail in Case Crime
No. 541 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366,
504, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act,
Police Station Lambhua, District Sultanpur
and be given in custody of his mother on
her 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 mother 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 she will ensure
that the juvenile do not repeat the offence.
232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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

(iii) The revisionist Vipin Mali
and his mother Smt. Pushpa Devi 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 A232
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1481 of 2021

Ashok Gupta ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Chandrajeet, Sri Babu Lal Ram

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

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 451 - Order for
custody and disposal of property pending
trial in certain case , Section 457 -
procedure of police upon seizure of
property , Public Gambling Act, 1867 -
Section 3⁄4 - power of the court under
Section 451 of the Code for passing of an
order for custody and disposal of property
can be invoked, only during the course of
an inquiry or at the stage of trial -
proceedings relating to investigation are
not within the realm of either inquiry or
trial - powers of the court under Section
451 cannot be invoked at the stage of
investigation.(Para - 18)

Application filed by the applicant-revisionist
under Section 451 of the Code before Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate for release of the
amount which had been seized by the police -
dismissed - hence present revision.

HELD:- In the facts of the present case, the
case was pending at the stage of the
investigation and the stage of trial had not yet
reached . The court below has thus rightly held
that since investigation was pending no order
for custody or disposal of property could be
passed in exercise of powers under Section 451
of the Code. (Para - 16,19)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Babu Lal Ram holding
brief of Sri Chandrajeet, learned counsel
for the revisionist and Ms. Sushma Soni,