IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Declaration of juvenility - Under scheme of JJ Act, 2015, declaration of juvenility may not by itself enure to benefit of juvenile in conflict with law.
(2) Bail once granted same cannot be cancelled when accused has not misused the liberty.

JUDGMENT :

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

This order will dispose of both the criminal appeals.

2. It may be mentioned that by order dated 21.02.2023, this Court directed tagging of SLP (Crl.) D. No. 24862 of 2022 with SLP (Crl.) No. 11233 of 2022 out of which the related Criminal Appeal No. 603 of 2025 has arisen.

3. Since SLP (Criminal) D. No. 24862 of 2022 has been tagged with Criminal Appeal No. 603 of 2025, separate notice has not been issued therein as parties are the same with the issues intertwined and being represented by the same set of lawyers. Accordingly, both the matters were heard together.

4. In Criminal Appeal No. 603 of 2025, appellant is the complainant. She has challenged the order dated 13.05.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (‘High Court’ for short) dismissed Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2022. It may be mentioned that by order dated 27.08.2021 the Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut (‘JJB’ for short) dismissed Miscellaneous Case No. 55/2021 (Akki alias Anmol alias Akshansh alias Goldee Vs. State) filed by the mother on behalf of respondent No. 2 to declare him as a juvenile in conflict with law. JJB held that on the date of the incident i.e. on 17.02.2021, respondent No. 2 was an adult being more than 18 years of age.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 27.08.2021, respondent No. 2 through his mother/natural guardian filed an appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, Exclusive Court, POCSO Act, Meerut (for short ‘the Addl. Sessions Judge’ hereinafter) which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2021. By the judgment and order dated 14.10.2021, learned Addl. Sessions Judge set aside the order of JJB dated 27.08.2021 declaring that respondent No. 2 was a juvenile delinquent on the date of the incident.

6. Appellant, thereafter, preferred criminal revision petition before the High Court assailing the aforesaid judgment and order dated 14.10.2021, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2022. By the impugned order dated 13.05.2022, High Court held that the date of birth of respondent No. 2 mentioned in the school certificate is determinative and did not find any reason to disbelieve or ignore the same. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition was dismissed upholding the judgment and order of the Addl. Sessions Judge dated 14.10.2021.

7. Against the impugned order dated 13.05.2022, appellant preferred the related special leave petition (criminal). This Court, by order dated 18.11.2022, had condoned the delay and issued notice. Thereafter, in the hearing held on 04.02.2025, leave was granted.

8. In SLP (Crl.) D. No. 24862 of 2022, the challenge is to the order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 234 of 2022 (Goldee alias Anmol Rana alias Akki alias Akshansh Vs. State of U.P.). By the aforesaid order dated 13.05.2022 (impugned order), High Court allowed the criminal revision filed by respondent No. 2.

9. Be it stated that JJB vide the order dated 27.10.2021 declined to grant bail to respondent No. 2. When this order was put to challenge before the Court of Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2021, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge passed an order dated 01.12.2021 declining to grant bail to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2, thereafter, filed Criminal Revision No. 234 of 2022 before the High Court. By the impugned order, High Court allowed the criminal revision and set aside the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. High Court further directed that respondent No. 2 should be enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond by either of his parents and in absence of his legal guardian with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge.

10. Aggrieved by the grant of bail to respondent No. 2 by the High Court, complainant has preferred Special Leave Petition (Criminal) D. No. 24862 of 2022.

11.