इलाहाबाद।

इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय ने शाहगंज (जौनपुर) निवासी राजेश कुमार के नाबालिग पुत्र की ओर से दाखिल पुनरीक्षण याचिका स्वीकार करते हुए उसे जमानत पर छोड़े जाने का निर्देश दिया है।

Anita Singh Advocate

पुनरीक्षणकर्ता की ओर से सुश्री अनीता सिंह एडवोकेट ने हाइकोर्ट कोर्ट में बहस करते हुए कोर्ट को बताया कि याची का कोई आपराधिक इतिहास नहीं है एवं प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट दर्ज कराने वाली भुगतभोगी नाबालिग बालिका की माता एवं स्वयं नाबालिग बालिका ने अपना चिकित्सीय परीक्षण कराने से इनकार कर दिया था एवं मात्र उनके बयानों के आधार पर नाबालिग किशोर को गिरफ्तार किया गया है।

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No.4494 of 2025

X Culprit Juvenile

…..Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

…..Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)

: Anita Singh, Dinesh Kumar Misra

Court No.-47

HON’BLE SIDDHARTH, J.

Compliance affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist; Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4,learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated 21.5.2025 passed by Children’s Court/Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Jaunpur in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2025 and order dated 7.5.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jaunpur in Case No. 79 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 72 of 2025 under Section 65(1) B.N.S.S. and section 4(2) POCSO Act Police Station Shahganj District Jaunpur.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits:

(i) admittedly, the revisionist was a juvenile, aged about 16 years 8 months 15 days on the date of alleged incident. He is in Child Protection Home since 3.3.2025:

(ii) the revisionist has been falsely implicated;

(iii) there is no specific or strong objection raised in the DPO report, other than the general and vague observations;

(iv) there is no criminal history of the revisionist;

(v) there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;

(vi) the applicant has remained confined in the child observation home for an unduly long period of time;

(vii) none of the grounds contemplated under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are available, to deny the bail to the applicant.

(ix) therefore, the impugned orders have been assailed as erroneous and contrary to law.

Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the present criminal revision. It is submitted, the incident reported is true and it is wrong to say that the allegations made against the revisionist are false, and/are motivated. Also, reliance has been placed on the findings recorded in the bail rejection orders to submit that the instant revision may be dismissed.

It is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Act. Under Section 12 of the Act, the prayer for bail of a juvenile may be rejected ‘if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile 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’.

The court has to see whether the opinion of the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and orders are in consonance with the provision of the Act. Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail may be refused to a juvenile offender. These are:-

(i) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or

(ii) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or

(iii) that his release would defeat the ends of justice?

Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the bail. It is not a relevant factor while considering to grant bail to the juvenile. It has been so held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB). It has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions of this court.

Thus, it remains largely undisputed that the applicant was a juvenile on the date of occurrence; does not appear to be prone to criminal proclivity or criminal psychology, in light of the observations of the D.P.O; does not have a criminal history; has been in confinement for an unduly long period of time, in as much as the trial has not concluded within time frame contemplated by the Act. Even otherwise, there does not appear to exist any factor or circumstance mentioned in section 12 of the Act as may dis-entitle the applicant to grant of bail, at this stage. The father of the applicant undertakes to address the statutory concerns expressed in section 12 of the Act, as to the safety and well being of the applicant, upon his release.

In view of the above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are in conflict with the settled principle in law, for the purpose of grant of bail and are erroneous and contrary to the law laid down by this court. The impugned orders are, hereby, set aside.

In view of the observations made above, the present criminal revision is allowed. Let the revisionist, X-Juvenile, s/o Rajesh Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties each of like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

(i) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;

(ii) The revisionist through guardian shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;

(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code/ section 269 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate the order to the Child Observation Home concerned within a week.

September 9, 2025

माननीय न्यायमूर्ति सिद्धार्थ ने किशोर को जमानत पर रिहा किए जाने का आदेश देते हुए कहा कि पुनरीक्षणकर्ता किशोर है और उसे किशोर अधिनियम की धारा 12 का लाभ मिलना चाहिए।

साथ ही जिला प्रोबेशन अधिकारी की रिपोर्ट के अनुसार पुनरीक्षणकर्ता के आपराधिक गतिविधियों के संलिप्त होने की संभावना भी नहीं है। कोर्ट में उपरोक्त पुनरीक्षण याचिका का सहायक शासकीय अधिवक्ता एवं वादी के अधिवक्ता द्वारा काफी विरोध भी किया गया था।