Juvenile A Thru. His Father Shri ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 10844 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Juvenile A Thru. His Father Shri ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 19 September, 2025

Author: Saurabh Lavania

Bench: Saurabh Lavania

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:58123
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1465 of 2024   
 
   Juvenile A Thru. His Father Shri Bajrangi    
 
  .....Revisionist(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Revisionist(s)   
 
:   
 
Prabhat Kumar Ojha, Ajay Kumar Ojha, Jaikaran   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 11
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.       

1. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the private opposite party No. 2/complainant despite service of notice is sufficient as per officer report dated 07.12.2024. Learned AGA is present in the Court.

2. Considered the aforesaid and also taking note of the order of this Court dated 11.09.2025, which says "It is made clear that on the next dates, the case shall not be adjourned in the absence of private opposite party and appropriate orders would be passed , the Court proceeded to hear the instant bail appeal on merits.

3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State 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 03.09.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2024, Case No.123 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.239 of 2024, under Sections 376D, 504, 506 IPC and 5G/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Leelapur, District Pratapgarh.

5. The submission of the counsel for the revisionist is that the story of the prosecution is completely false and bogus. It has further been stated that the revisionist and the victim were known to each other and were having affair.

6. It has been further submitted that the revisionist was about 16 years 2 months old at the time of the incident, while the victim was about 14 years old as per the School records and 17 years old as per the medical opinion. They were in relationship and known to each other. This period of relationship, according to the victim herself, is about one year and same would appear from the statement of victim made before the Investigating Officer. When the relationship of the victim came to knowledge of the opposite party no.2 and the family of the victim, then to create pressure upon the revisionist the opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR making various allegations against the revisionist and co-accused, another minor, who has already been released on bail by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh vide order dated 03.08.2024 passed in Bail Application 45/24. Copy of the bail order of co-accused is produced before the Court and same is taken on record.

7. It has been further submitted that the victim is not truthful witness as before the Investigating Officer, she has stated that the revisionist has committed the crime at a place situated in front of the house of the victim herself. However, before the Magistrate, the victim changed her stand by implicated the co-accused, against whom in the FIR no allegations were levelled and who has already been released on bail.

8. Further, submission is that the medical opinion also does not support the story of the prosecution as no injury was found over the body of the victim (internal or external).

9. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist, who is in incarceration since 18.06.2024, 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.

10. It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, is incarceration since 18.06.2024 and he is having no criminal history, which has not been opposed by the side opposite.

11. It is further stated that if the story of prosecution is taken on its face value even in that eventuality, taking note of spirit of Section 12, Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015 and also the period of incarceration of revisionist i.e about 11 months 15 days and also the punishment which could be awarded to the revisionist, a juvenile, under Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015 read with other provisions including Section 21 of the Act of 2015, the revisionist is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

12. Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the bail. It is not a relevant factor while considering to grant bail to the juvenile. It has been so held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB). It has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions of this court.

13. Further submission is that in the aforesaid background of the case, the revisionist 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.

14. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant, 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, they have not dispute the above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist.

15. 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 as well as medical opinion, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

16. The impugned judgment and order dated 03.09.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2024, Case No.123 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.239 of 2024, under Sections 376D, 504, 506 IPC and 5G/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Leelapur, District Pratapgarh are set aside.

17. Let Juvenile 'X', of aforesaid Case Crime Number be enlarged on bail, in the above mentioned case 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 her counsel, failing which, the order of bail granted to Juvenile may be cancelled.

18. 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.)

September 19, 2025

KR