Allahabad High Court
Accussed Of Case Crime No 569/2021 vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 6 October, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:61289
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 465 of 2024
Accussed Of Case Crime No 569/2021
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt, Lucknow And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Shadab Haider, Arun Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 11
HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
1. Affidavit of service of notice upon complainant and victim filed by learned AGA in the Court today is taken on record.
2. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the private opposite party No. 2/complainant and opposite party No. 5/victim despite service of notice, as appears from Annexure Nos. CA-2 and CA-1, respectively, to the affidavit of service filed by State in the Court today. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In these circumstances, the Court proceeded to hear the instant bail revision on merits.
3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. as well as perused the material placed on record.
4. 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 13.02.2024, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Hardoi in Criminal Appeal No.02 of 2024 and the order dated 01.03.2023, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hardoi in Bail Application No. 190/2023 arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.569/2021, under Section- 376 IPC and Section 5m/6 POCSO Act and Section- 3(2)V SC/ST Act, Police Station- Beniganj, District- Hardoi.
5. 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 and concocted.
6. It is further stated that the revisionist is in incarceration since 03.10.2021 and he is having no criminal history, which has not been opposed by learned AGA based upon counter affidavit, and the prosecution would examine several witnesses to support its case and in this view of the matter, the conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak. As such, taking note of the period of incarceration i.e. about 4 years as also the intent of Sections 12 and 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015, the revisionist is entitled to be released on bail.
7. In regard to period of incarceration, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 SCC 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi. Vs. The Director General Bureau of Investigation, passed in Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3610 of 2020), as per which, bail can be granted to those accused persons on the ground that there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and there is a long incarceration period of that accused. Relevant para-16 of the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra) is quoted below:- "This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."
8. In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed regarding point of incarceration period and delay in trial. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted below:- "On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court."
9. Further submission is that in the aforesaid background of the case, the revisionist, who is having no criminal history, 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 criminals or may be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger.
10. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submitted that no illegality has been committed by the courts concerned in rejecting the prayer of bail sought by the revisionist, as there was ample evidence against him. However, he has not disputed the above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist.
11. Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of spirit of Section 12, Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015 and also the period of incarceration i.e. about 4 years, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.
12. The impugned judgment and order dated 13.02.2024, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Hardoi in Criminal Appeal No.02 of 2024 and the order dated 01.03.2023, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Hardoi in Bail Application No. 190/2023 arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.569/2021, under Section- 376 IPC and Section 5m/6 POCSO Act and Section- 3(2)V SC/ST Act, Police Station- Beniganj, District- Hardoi are set aside.
13. Let the Accused Of Case Crime No 569/2021 be enlarged on bail, in the above mentioned case on executing a personal bond by his mother/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 mother that she 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 her counsel, failing which, the order of bail granted to Juvenile may be cancelled.
14. 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.
(Saurabh Lavania,J.)
October 6, 2025
Arun/-
