# X (Minor) Revisionist/ (In Jail) v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 942
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-10-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1036 of 2022
- **Bench:** Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/x-minor-revisionist-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47934
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 - Section 102 - revision , Section
12(1) - bail to juvenile - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 376AB - The
Protection
of
Children
From
Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Section- 5M/6 - Bail
for juveniles is not mandatory in all cases
- it can be denied if the court believes it
would defeat the ends of justice - Juvenile
Justice Act differentiates offenses into
petty, serious, and heinous categories -
end of justice is a crucial consideration in
juvenile cases. (Para - 7)

(B) The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 -
Section 3 - Courts to adhere to Section-3's
general principles as a guiding factor
when exercising their powers - child's best
interest, demands of accused & victim's
family.(Para - 8)

(C) The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 - "ends
of justice" - holistic view - seen through
three
angles
-
child's
welfare
and
betterment, demands of justice to victim
and her family & concerns of society at
11 All. X (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
943
large - court must rely on its own robust
sense of justice to ensure best interests of
child, victim, and society.(Para 8)

Girl of very tender age of 6 years - violent
sexual assault by a boy of merely 15 years -
enticed in a well planned manner by offering her
sweets - trauma and shock caused to an
innocent girl - no understanding and inkling of
act - resentment caused to members of her
family - Challenging order passed by Juvenile
Justice Board & Special Judge (POCSO Act) - in
Criminal Appeal - affirming order of Juvenile
Justice Board - declined bail to juvenile - hence
revision.(Para - 8)

HELD:- Juvenile Justice Board is directed to
expedite
the
hearing
and
conclude
it
promptly.(Para - 9)

Revision dismissed. (E-7)

## Text

942 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
own and has simply gone with the view of
the Juvenile Justice Board.

12. It does not appear from the
material on record that the opinion of
professional experts on two counts i.e., the
mental capacity to commit the crime and
ability to understand the consequences of
the act have been elicited at any stage. As
held by the Apex Court, opinion of a child
psychologist or other professional dealing
in child psychology or child psychiatry is
mandatorily to be taken unless the Board
comprises any such member, hence, it can
safely be said that the impugned orders
have been passed not strictly in accordance
with law. The matter of preliminary
assessment requires reconsideration for
which it shall be appropriate that the matter
be remanded to the Board to decide it
afresh in the light of the observations of the
Apex Court.

13. The impugned orders dated
23.12.2021 and 11.08.2021, are therefore
hereby set aside. The matter of preliminary
assessment is remanded to the Juvenile
Justice Board. As the incident pertains to
May 2018, hence, the Juvenile Justice
Board
is
directed
to
conduct
the
proceedings of preliminary assessment
expeditiously and preferably within a
month of receipt of this order.

14. Accordingly, this revision is
disposed of.

15. The order of this Court be
certified to the Juvenile Justice Board
concerned immediately.

16. The Registry is directed to
circulate the order of the Apex Court
passed in Barun Chandra Thakur vs
Master Bholu and Another in Criminal
Appeal No. 950 of 2022 decided on
13.07.2022, for compliance.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 942
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1036 of 2022

X (Minor) ...Revisionist/Accused (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Satendra Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Mukesh Kumar Maurya

(A) Criminal Law - The Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015 - Section 102 - revision , Section
12(1) - bail to juvenile - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 376AB - The
Protection
of
Children
From
Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Section- 5M/6 - Bail
for juveniles is not mandatory in all cases
- it can be denied if the court believes it
would defeat the ends of justice - Juvenile
Justice Act differentiates offenses into
petty, serious, and heinous categories -
end of justice is a crucial consideration in
juvenile cases. (Para - 7)

(B) The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 -
Section 3 - Courts to adhere to Section-3's
general principles as a guiding factor
when exercising their powers - child's best
interest, demands of accused & victim's
family.(Para - 8)

(C) The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 - "ends
of justice" - holistic view - seen through
three
angles
-
child's
welfare
and
betterment, demands of justice to victim
and her family & concerns of society at
11 All. X (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
943
large - court must rely on its own robust
sense of justice to ensure best interests of
child, victim, and society.(Para 8)

Girl of very tender age of 6 years - violent
sexual assault by a boy of merely 15 years -
enticed in a well planned manner by offering her
sweets - trauma and shock caused to an
innocent girl - no understanding and inkling of
act - resentment caused to members of her
family - Challenging order passed by Juvenile
Justice Board & Special Judge (POCSO Act) - in
Criminal Appeal - affirming order of Juvenile
Justice Board - declined bail to juvenile - hence
revision.(Para - 8)

HELD:- Juvenile Justice Board is directed to
expedite
the
hearing
and
conclude
it
promptly.(Para - 9)

Revision dismissed. (E-7)

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

1. Heard Sri Satendra Singh, learned
counsel for the revisionist and learned
A.G.A. for the State. None appeared on
behalf of the informant/respondent no.2.

2. Perused the record.

3. This criminal revision has been filed
under section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act
challenging the order dated 06.12.2021
passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Mainpuri
and also challenging the order dated
10.02.2022 passed by Special Judge (POCSO
Act), Mainpur in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of
2021 affirming the order of the Juvenile
Justice Board and declining bail to the
juvenile in a matter arising out of Case Crime
No.162 of 2021, under sections 376AB I.P.C.
and section- 5M/6 POCSO Act, Police
Station- Elau, District- Mainpuri.

4. Contentions of the revisionist are as
below:-

The
orders
impugned
are
arbitrary, unjust and have been passed
against settled principles of law and against
the mandate of section 12 of the Juvenile
Justice Act; the assumptions of the courts
below that in case he is released on bail, he
shall be exposed to physical, moral and
psychological danger and that the ends of
justice shall stand defeated are based on no
evidence whatsoever; the bail has been
declined without any cogent reasons and on
surmises and conjectures; there is nothing
on record to show that the juvenile was in
company of criminals before the arrest; he
himself is having no criminal history; the
case against him is false; this conclusion is
baseless that the parents are not having any
control over the revisionist. The bail has
been declined on the basis of gravity of the
offence, which is against the settled
principles of law.

5. In this case, an F.I.R. was lodged
by the mother of the victim with the
allegations that when her daughter, aged
about 6 years, was playing outside her
house below the shed, the accused juvenile,
aged about 15 years, lured her on the
pretext of giving toffee and took her behind
a hut and committed rape on her. Her
daughter started bleeding profusely; she
was brought to the house by her cousin;
when they went to the parents of the
juvenile to complain against him, his
mother thrashed him (juvenile), the victim
was given first aid and was referred to for
higher medical assistance, where she was
examined again under sedation. 1 cm tear
was found in fourchette and she was
bleeding. Finding the accused as juvenile,
the matter was brought before the Juvenile
Justice Board; his age was found about 12
years
and
10
months
in
an
age
determination inquiry done on 05.10.2021;
the social investigation report was called,
944 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wherein it was observed by the District
Probation Officer that the boy requires
strict control and supervision. The bail to
the juvenile was declined by the Juvenile
Justice Board and the appeal preferred on
behalf of the juvenile was also dismissed.

6. Section 12(1) of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015 deals with the matters of bail to
the juvenile:-

"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 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."

In continuation thereof, there is a
proviso, which says 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.

7. Thus, it is clear that bail to a
juvenile is not must in all cases as it can be
denied for certain reasons. The law does
not say that once a person is found a
juvenile, he should be released on bail
notwithstanding
other
facts
and
circumstances of the matter. It may be
noted that the bail can also be denied if
juvenile's release, in the opinion of the
Court, would defeat the ends of justice. The
phrase ends of justice is undoubtedly a
meaningful phrase bringing within its
sweep many factors including the nature of
the crime and the merits of the matter,
though ordinarily, as has been held in
number of cases, the merits of the case or
the nature of the accusations are not to be
considered. At the same time, there may be
other facts and circumstances which cannot
simply be passed over by the court
concerned. As far as the nature of the
offence is concerned, the Juvenile Justice
Act itself differentiates between offences
falling into three categories, i.e., petty,
serious and heinous offences. If the Justice
Justice Act, 2015 is studied, it becomes
quite clear that the cases falling in different
categories on the basis of classification into
petty, serious and heinous have been dealt
with differently. It can safely be remarked
that the scheme of the Act takes into
consideration the nature of the offence as
well. The need for dealing the matters of
heinous offences in a more sensitive
manner have been brought into focus by the
courts of law, time and again, through
various judgements. Infact, the courts as
well as the legislature have always been
sensitive to this aspect of the matter.

8. Whenever, a Court of law decides
to exercise his powers under the provisions
of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the general
principles as enumerated in Section- 3 of
the Act have to be kept in mind as guiding
factor. On one hand, all decisions regarding
the child should be based on primary
consideration of best interest of the child,
on the other hand, the demands of justice of
the other side cannot be simply shrugged
off. The concern of the victim's family and
the larger interest of the society cannot be
11 All. X (Minor) & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
945
dealt with in a contemptuous manner. In
succession to aforesaid observations, the
policy of the act must be brought into
focus. Very importantly it may be noted
that the scheme of the Act has a twin
approach, i.e., reformatory as well as
retributive to certain extent. When dealing
with bail grant or refusal thereof, the ends
of justice may compel the Court to strike a
balance between competing and often
conflicting demands of justice of both the
sides, i.e., the accused and the victim.
When viewing the case from this angle, the
nature of the crime, the methodology
adopted, the manner of commission and the
evidence available may assume ample
significance. Moreover, the aim and object
of this act, is to achieve not only the
welfare and betterment of a juvenile by
extending to him services of reformatory
nature, so that he can be brought back to
main stream of society as a person of
healthy mind, but also to address the
concerns of society at large at this stage.
This aim cannot be achieved unless a
holistic view of the matter is taken. In my
opinion, to give meaning to the phrase
''ends of justice', the matter of bail has to be
seen literally through a prism having three
angles, i.e., firstly, the angle of welfare and
betterment of the child itself, i.e., best
interest of the child, secondly, the demands
of justice to the victim and her family and
thirdly, the concerns of society at large.
And in the end, the court has to depend
upon its own robust sense of justice.

8. In this case, a girl of very tender
age of 6 years was put to violent sexual
assault by a boy of merely 15 years. She
was enticed in a well planned manner by
offering her sweets. The trauma and shock
caused to an innocent girl, who had no
understanding and inkling of the act with
which she had to go through and the
resentment which was caused to the
members of her family, can easily be
understood.

9. In view of the above, the present
criminal revision is dismissed. However,
the Juvenile Justice Board is directed to
expedite the hearing and conclude the same
at the earliest.

10. Copy of the order be certified to
the court concerned.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 945
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1714 of 2022

X (Minor) & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Jai Prakash Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
Revision - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 228-A - Disclosure of identity of
the victim of certain offences , etc. ,
Section 363 - kidnapping , Section 366 -
Kidnapping ,abducting or inducing woman
to compel her marriage , etc. - The
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 - section 37 - Orders
passed regarding a child in need of care
and protection - welfare and safety of
child in need of care and protection is the
legal responsibility of the Board/Child
Welfare Committee and the Magistrate/