Very Disturbing: Allahabad High Court On Minor Languishing In Jail With Adult Inmates For Over A Year | Trial Court Sat On Juvenility Plea Despite Documentary Proof
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Uttar Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi granted bail to a 16-year-old boy accused under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Sections 5J(2), 5L, and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The Court observed that the accused was a juvenile and should have been treated in accordance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Court allowed the bail application and directed that the applicant be released on furnishing a bond by his father. It further instructed the Special Judge, POCSO Court, Pratapgarh to expedite the determination of the applicant's juvenility and underscored the legal obligation to treat children in conflict with law with care and sensitivity.
The application was filed seeking bail in Case Crime No. 52 of 2024 registered at Police Station Aasupur Deosara, District Pratapgarh, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Sections 5J(2), 5L, and 6 of the POCSO Act. The First Information Report, lodged on 06.03.2024, alleged that the applicant enticed away the informant's 13-year-old daughter during the night of 04/05 March 2024, with the involvement of his relatives.
In her Section 161 CrPC statement, the minor girl claimed she loved the applicant, intended to marry him, and stated that they had a relationship akin to that of a husband and wife. She also confirmed that she was pregnant. During the medico-legal examination, she reiterated her marriage with the applicant and showed no signs of injury or force. A positive urine pregnancy test and ultrasonography confirmed a single gravid uterus.
The statement under Section 164 CrPC further reinforced the same narrative, where the girl admitted to having eloped voluntarily to Mumbai, where she called the applicant, married him in a temple, and lived with him. She disclosed consensual physical relations and confirmed being two months pregnant.
The applicant submitted an affidavit claiming he was a minor, born on 18.04.2008, making him 16 years old at the time of the alleged incident. The affidavit affirmed that he had no criminal history and had been falsely implicated. An application dated 08.04.2024 was filed before the trial court seeking a declaration of his juvenility, supported by educational documents. However, this application remained undecided.
Despite these claims, neither the applicant's counsel nor the State counsel informed the Court about the pending application for a declaration of juvenility during the initial hearing. This omission persisted even when the case was listed and heard again, until the Court, while dictating the order, independently noted the applicant's age.
The Court stated that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, mandates a distinct, child-friendly approach. The provisions clearly state that a person below 18 years of age is considered a "child" and that such persons should not be treated as adult accused. The Court underlined that juveniles must be handled with sensitivity and in a manner aimed at rehabilitation.
It was observed that, in violation of the Act, the applicant had been lodged in a regular jail. The Court remarked that had the counsel properly informed it about the applicant's age, the protections available under the Act could have been applied earlier.
"Complainant or victim of the case have a right to oppose the bail application but they do not have a right to stall hearing of the bail application more particularly, when the State counsel is present to oppose the bail application and more particularly when the applicant is a juvenile."
"Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the consistent statements of the victim wherein she has not levelled any allegation against the applicant, coupled with the fact that the applicant is a young boy aged 16 years, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail."
The Court recorded its concern that even though the application had clearly stated the applicant's age as 16 years, this fact was not brought to its attention by any of the counsels.
"It was only while dictating the order that the Court itself found out the age of the applicant mentioned in the application."
The Court took note of the failure of both the trial court and counsel to act upon the application dated 08.04.2024 for declaring the applicant a juvenile: "The trial court should have proceeded to decide this application first with all expedition and the applicant ought not have been made to languish in jail with adult under-trial accused persons and convicts."
"The loss which has been caused to the applicant by making him spend a period of more than one year in regular jail with under-trial accused persons and convicts, cannot be made good by any means."
The Court observed that Section 9(2) of the Act obligates a court to inquire and determine the age of the accused if there is any claim or indication that he may be a juvenile: "The court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding on the matter, stating the age of the person as nearly as may be."
The judgment further recorded: "Had this Court missed this point for want of proper assistance from the learned Counsel for the parties, the applicant would have continued to be denied the protections available to him under the laws."
It also called attention to the obligations under Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Act, stating that a juvenile must not be placed in jail and should be treated as if in the custody of his parents: "Any person in whose charge a child in conflict with law is placed, shall while the order is in force, have responsibility of the said child, as if the said person was the child's parent and responsible for the child's maintenance."
The Court allowed the bail application and directed: "Let the applicant be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond his father that he will ensure proper care of the applicant and will ensure that the applicant does not evade the process of law in the aforesaid case in which he is involved."
The Court instructed the Special Judge, POCSO Court, Pratapgarh: "...to decide the application dated 08.04.2024...expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties and in case the applicant is found to be a juvenile, he should be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act."
Further, the Registrar General of the High Court was directed: "...to circulate a copy of this order to all the Judicial Officers in the State through the District Judges of all the districts with the object of sensitizing the judicial officers to be more careful while dealing with criminal matters where the accused appears to be a juvenile or he claims to be a juvenile."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Dr. Gyan Singh, Awadhesh Kumar Pal
For the Respondents: G.A., Durgesh Mishra, Saumya Singh
Case Title: XXXX vs. State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko and 3 Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC-LKO:29142
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12043 of 2024
Bench: Justice Subhash Vidyarthi
[Read/Download order]
