The Allahabad High Court, while granting bail to a juvenile accused in a case under sections including 376 of the Indian Penal Code, has reiterated the legal principle that the gravity of an offence is not a relevant factor for deciding a juvenile’s bail application under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
Justice Siddharth set aside the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi, and the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Varanasi, which had previously denied bail to the juvenile. The court held that the lower courts’ findings were “erroneous and contrary to the law” and did not align with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act.
Background of the Case
The criminal revision was filed by a juvenile, identified as ‘X’, challenging two orders: the order dated 23.10.2024 by the Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi, and the appellate order dated 27.11.2024 by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi. Both orders had rejected his plea for bail.
The juvenile was implicated in Case Crime No. 381 of 2024, registered at Police Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi, under Sections 376 (Rape), 506 (Criminal Intimidation), and 341 (Wrongful Restraint) of the I.P.C. At the time of the alleged incident, the revisionist was aged 17 years, 5 months, and 25 days. He had been in a child protection home since 17.09.2024.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the revisionist, Prateek Dwivedi and Praveen Kumar Singh, argued that the applicant was a juvenile who had been falsely implicated. They submitted that the juvenile had no criminal history and had been confined in a child observation home for an “unduly long period of time” with no hope of an early conclusion to the trial. It was contended that the report from the District Probation Officer (DPO) contained only “general and vague observations” and that none of the conditions for denying bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, were present in this case.
The Learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) for the State of U.P. vehemently opposed the revision. The State’s counsel argued that the incident was true and the allegations were not false or motivated. The A.G.A. relied on the findings recorded in the bail rejection orders by the lower courts to support the plea for dismissing the revision.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Siddharth, in his analysis, focused on the specific provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. The court noted that it is undisputed that the applicant is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the Act.
The judgment stated that bail for a juvenile may be rejected only under three specific circumstances laid down in Section 12(1): “(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.”
The court explicitly observed that the severity of the alleged crime is not a permissible ground for denying bail to a juvenile. The judgment read: “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.”
In support of this principle, the court cited its previous ruling in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB), noting that this precedent has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions.
The court found that the revisionist does not appear to be prone to criminal proclivity, has no criminal history, and has been in confinement for a long period. It also noted that the juvenile’s father had provided an undertaking to address the statutory concerns regarding the safety and well-being of the applicant upon his release.
Concluding its analysis, the court held, “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. Consequently, those orders cannot be sustained.”
Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal revision and set aside the impugned orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Special Judge.
The court directed that the revisionist, Juvenile ‘X’, be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned court. The release is subject to conditions, including that the revisionist shall not tamper with evidence, shall not seek adjournments when witnesses are present, and shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed.
