Allahabad High Court
Lallu Yadav @ Ajay Kumar Thru. His ... vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 5 May, 2022
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 176 of 2021
Revisionist :- Lallu Yadav @ Ajay Kumar Thru. His Father Harischandra Yadav
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Pranav Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Singh
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard Sri Pranav Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Alok Singh, counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and Sri Anurag Verma, learned learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present revision has been preferred with a prayer to allow this revision and set aside the order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Unnao as well as the judgment and order dated 19.01.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 11,/Special Judge POCSO Act, Unnao, in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2021 (Lallu Yadav @ Ajay Kumar Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 239 of 2019, under Sections 376, 506, 504 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Purwa, District Unnao, with a further prayer to enlarge the revisionist on bail in respect of the aforesaid case crime.
Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged on 08.09.2019 but there is no mention of the date of incident in that F.I.R. It is further argued that according to the medical examination, the age of the prosecutrix came to be determined as 19 years and is major. Counsel for the revisionist has further invited the attention of the Court to the report of the District Probation Officer, in which the said officer has opined that the family of the revisionist does the work of farming and the child in conflict needs care and protection in home under strict vigilence of his guardian. The report does not indicate any adverse opinion against the child in conflict. Counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the revisionist has been declared juvenile aged about 13 years 10 months and 28 days and the maximum punishment which is provided for, is up to three years, whereas the child in conflict is in home care protection since 20.09.2019 and thus approximately he has passed 2 years and 8 months in the home care protection and thus he has served almost the maximum period of punishment.
In view of the aforesaid, the criminal revision is liable to be allowed and the revisionist be enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned orders dated 06.03.2020 and 19.01.2021, are set aside.
The revisionist, namely, Lallu Yadav @ Ajay Kumar is directed to be put in the custody of his father and be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the concerned Juvenile Justice Board subject to the condition that the parent/guardian of the revisionist will take care of his education and betterment and will not allow to indulge him in any criminal activity and will keep constant check on his activities. Both the sureties are directed to be close relatives of the revisionist juvenile.
Order Date :- 5.5.2022
Arun K. Singh
