Allahabad High Court
Master Xxxxxx Minor Thru. His Father vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 11 August, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46860
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 655 of 2025
Revisionist :- Master Xxxxxx Minor Thru. His Father
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Parijat Mishra Belaura,Roshani Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. As per office report dated 25.07.2025 the notice has been served upon the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, however, when the case was taken up, nobody appeared to oppose the revision. However, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short "Act of 2015") has been filed against the judgment and order dated 07.02.2025, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Room No. 12, Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No.06 of 2025 (Mohd. Arman @ Arman Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and another), which was preferred against the order dated 17.01.2025, passed by the Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur by which the bail application of the revisionist was rejected in FIR/Case Crime No.146/2024, under Sections 376D, 506, 452 IPC and Section 67 of the I.T Act and Section 3 (2) (V) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station -Dhammaur, District- Sultanpur.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the case, inasmuch as, the revisionist has not committed any offence as alleged and the prosecution story is false, concocted and misconceived.
5. It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, who is languishing in jail since 06.12.2024 and he is having no criminal history, which has not been opposed by the side opposite, and as per Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015, the maximum punishment which could be awarded to a juvenile is three years. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the co-accused Vimlesh Kashyap has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 04.03.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No.3966 of 2024 and as such, the revisionist is entitled for bail on the ground of parity also. The order dated 04.03.2025 is quoted herein under :-
"1. Supplementary counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the complainant is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the complainant.
3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 08.11.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 2757 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 146 of 2024, under Sections 376 D, 506, 452 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act, P.S. Dhammaur, District Sultanpur.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged by moving application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 22.08.2024 in relation to the incident dated 11.11.2023. It is also submitted that as per the prosecution case, the marriage of the victim was settled with someone else, on which, the appellant snatched the mobile of the victim and sent her intimated photograph to her fiance, due to which, the marriage was broken. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that after considering the entire evidences collected, there is no evidence that any such photograph was recovered from the mobile of the appellant. It is vehemently submitted that though as per the prosecution case, victim was raped by the appellant and video of the same was captured by the co-accused-Arman, but the medico legal report does not support the prosecution version. It is also submitted that the offence of POCSO Act was dropped by the Investigating Officer. It is next submitted that the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet in mechanical manner, but the court below failed to appreciate the evidences in correct perspective and passed the impugned order. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant, who is in jail since 25.09.2024, is entitled for bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the prayer of the appellant and submit that the incident was taken place and photo of the same was transferred by the appellant on the mobile phone of the victim as well as to her fiance, due to which, her marriage was broken. Thereafter, all these facts came into notice of the complainant and he lodged the F.I.R. However, they do not dispute the fact that no such photograph or video was recovered from the mobile of the appellant.
6. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the appeal, F.I.R. impugned order as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that in relation to the incident taken place on 11.11.2023, the F.I.R. was lodged under the order of the Magistrate on 22.08.2024. It is also evident from the record that the F.I.R. was lodged when the marriage of the victim was broken. In view of above facts and circumstances as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.
7. Impugned order dated 08.11.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 2757 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 146 of 2024, under Sections 376 D, 506, 452 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act, P.S. Dhammaur, District Sultanpur, is hereby set aside.
8. Let appellant, Vimlesh Kashyap be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-
(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. "
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist next submitted that taking note of the period of incarceration and the ground of parity, the juvenile is entitled to be enlarged on bail and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may come with the contact of the known and unknown bet criminals or may be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger.
7. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submitted that no illegality has been committed by both the courts below as there was ample evidence against the revisionist, but he has not disputed the above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist.
8. Thus, having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.
9. The impugned judgment and order dated 07.02.2025, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Room No. 12, Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No.06 of 2025 (Mohd. Arman @ Arman Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and another) and the order dated 17.01.2025, passed by the Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur by which the bail application of the revisionist was rejected in FIR/Case Crime No.146/2024, under Sections 376D, 506, 452 IPC and Section 67 of the I.T Act and Section 3 (2) (V) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station -Dhammaur, District- Sultanpur are set aside.
10. Let Master XXXXXX (Minor, aged about 16 years) S/o Sri XXXXXX, accused of aforesaid Case Crime Number be enlarged on bail, in the above mentioned case crime on executing a personal bond by his father/natural guardian with two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court/Board concerned and on submission of undertaking on affidavit by his father that he will take due care of the juvenile, will not allow him to indulge in any unlawful or criminal activity or join the company of unlawful elements, will keep him under strict control, shall not attempt or tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses, shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence, shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed either personally or through his counsel, failing which, the order of bail granted to Juvenile may be cancelled.
11. For a period of one year from today, the Juvenile shall appear before the District Probation Officer concerned along with his natural guardian on 10th of every month.
Order Date :- 11.8.2025/ML
