'Very Disturbing': Allahabad HC On 'Minor' Spending A Year In Regular Jail As Trial Court Failed To Decide Juvenility Plea

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that if the trial court ultimately concludes that the applicant is a juvenile in conflict with law, the loss caused to him, having spent over a year in regular jail with undertrial prisoners and convicts, cannot be remedied by any means.

Furthermore, the bench directed the Registrar General to circulate a copy of its 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”.

In this case, the Court was dealing with the bail plea of the applicant (a 16-year-old minor) booked under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) of IPC and 5J(2), 5-L, 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The Court granted him bail by considering consistent statements of the 13-year-old victim wherein she did not level any allegation against the applicant, coupled with the fact that the applicant is a young boy aged 16 years.

However, before parting with the case, the Court observed that the minor was legally entitled to be treated as a 'child' under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Despite this, he was taken into custody and kept in a regular jail alongside undertrial accused persons and convicts—an aspect the Court described to as “a very disturbing fact.”

The Single Judge referred to Sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the 2015 Act to note that a child who is in conflict with law, shall not be treated as an ordinary adult accused person and he shall be treated with a lot more sensitivity with an object of ensuring his better future and welfare.

The Court specifically referred to Section 9(2) of the Act, which mandates that if the court is of the opinion that the person was a child on the date of the commission of the offence, the court shall make an enquiry to determine the age of the person.

Against this backdrop, the High Court took exception to the fact that his application claiming juvenility was not decided by the Trial Court, which led the child to suffer in a regular jail.

The Court also said that in any case, when the matter had come to the HC, it was the duty of the learned Counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A. to have pointed out this fact to this Court that the applicant is a child, but they failed to perform this duty.

“None of the learned Counsel pointed out this fact even today. 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,” the bench observed.

In view of this, the bench directed the Special Judge, POCSO Court, Pratapgarh to decide the applicant's plea for declaring him as a juvenile, expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

The Court added that in case the applicant is found to be a juvenile, he should be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the 2015 Act.

Appearances

Counsel for Applicant: Gyan Singh, Awadhesh Kumar Pal

Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A., Durgesh Mishra, Saumya Singh

Case title - Arjun @ Golu vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 184

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 184

Click Here ToRead/Download Order