Allahabad High Court
Juvenile X Thru. His Guardian / Mother vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 14 October, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:63926
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 784 of 2025
Juvenile X Thru. His Guardian / Mother
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Vimal Kishor Singh, Anoop Srivastava, Sangeeta Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 13
HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. 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 05.06.2025 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Unnao, in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2025, which was preferred against the order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Unnao in Application No. 30 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 02 of 2025, under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act, P.S.-Achalganj, District-Unnao.
3. 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.
4. It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, at the time of the incident was about 17 years and seven months old and is in incarceration since 04.01.2025. He has no criminal history, which fact has not been opposed by the opposite side. As per Section 18(1)(g) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short "Act of 2015"), the maximum punishment that can be awarded to a juvenile is three years which is however subject to the other provisions of the Act of 2015 including Section 21. Therefore, considering the period of incarceration already undergone, the juvenile is entitled to be released on bail.
5. It is stated that revisionist has been implicated only to win the laurels of higher officials of the Administration and, in fact, the case of the prosecution against the revisionist and co-accused is completely bogus.
6. It is also stated that on earlier occasions, the revisionist was apprehended and sent to jail for the offence indicated under NDPS Act and liberty of bail was granted to the revisionist by the Court concerned vide order dated 12.01.2024 passed in Case Crime No. 185 of 2023 under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act, P.S.-Ashoha, District-Unnao and thereafter vide order dated 02.12.2024 passed in Case Crime No. 269 of 2024 under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act, P.S.-Purwa, District-Unnao.
7. It is further submitted that the instant case of the prosecution against the revisionist arising out of Case Crime No. 2 of 2025, under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act, P.S.-Achalganj, District-Unnao is false and concocted.
8. Further submitted that according to the case of the prosecution, which is apparent from the recovery memo/FIR is to the effect that from the possession of the applicant and co-accused 19 bandals of 5 kg, 11 bandals of 4.5 kg, 6 bandal of 4.5 kg, 2 bandals of 4 kg (Total 90 kg of Ganja) were recovered on 04.01.2025 at 11:50 hours. However, the sample was taken only from one bundal of 5 kg. Thus, the procedure as prescribed in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 (in short "Rules of 2022") made under the Act of 1985 was not followed by the police personnel and this aspect would be fatal to the story of the prosecution.
9. It is stated that in view of aforesaid, it would be a case of acquittal. Prayer is to enlarge the revisionist on bail.
10. Learned AGA, 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 could not dispute the above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist, including based upon Rules of 2022 and also that in earlier cases the revisionist has already been enlarged on bail.
11. Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the order dated 05.06.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3604 of 2024, wherein this Court in para 38 observed that, "I am of the considered view that the restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act were meant to be applicable to Courts other than the Constitutional Courts and in view of the provision contained in Section 36-A (3) of NDPS Act, those restrictions do not apply to the Constitutional Courts", I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.
12. The judgment and order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Unnao, in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2025, which was preferred against the order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Unnao in Application No. 30 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 02 of 2025, under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act, P.S.-Achalganj, District-Unnao, are hereby set aside.
13. Let Juvenile X Thru. His Guardian / Mother of aforesaid Case Crime Number 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 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 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 14, 2025
Vinay/-
