Juvenile X Thru. Mother In Case Crime No ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 11020 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Juvenile X Thru. Mother In Case Crime No ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko ... on 24 September, 2025

Author: Saurabh Lavania

Bench: Saurabh Lavania

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:59610
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 734 of 2024   
 
   Juvenile X Thru. Mother In Case Crime No 538/2023    
 
  .....Revisionist(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko And 3 Others    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Revisionist(s)   
 
:   
 
Anurag Singh, Dheerendra Kumar Singh, Rajnish Maurya, Suyesh Pradhan   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A., Dr. Shailendra Sharma, Shitesh Jha   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 11
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.      

1. This Court on 13.08.2025 passed the following order:- "Case called out.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. are present, however, no one is present on behalf of opposite party no.2.

In the interest of justice, the case is adjourned for the day.

List this case on 21.08.2025, in terms of earlier order of this Court.

It is made clear that on the next date of listing, the case would not be adjourned and appropriate order would be passed, even in absence of learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2, as it is the matter of bail. "

2. Today when the case is called out, no one appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 to oppose the present case which relates to enlargement of juvenile on bail. In these circumstances, the Court proceeded to hear the instant bail revision on merits.

3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and 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 30.04.2024 passed by the Special Judge, Children Court, Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2024, which was preferred against the order dated 13.03.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri, arising out of Case Crime No. 538 of 2023, under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Mitauli, District-Lakhimpur Kheri.

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, concocted.

6. It is submitted that the revisionist, a juvenile, has been in incarceration since 25.11.2023. He has no prior criminal history, which has not been disputed by the opposite side. As per Section 18(1)(g) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 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 i.e. one year and nine months, the juvenile is entitled to be released on bail.

7. It is further submitted that the revisionist, at the time of alleged incident, was about 17 years, 3 months and 2 days, whereas the victim, who from her own appearance was an adult, according to her own statement, was aged about 17 years and 3 months and being so both were of the same age group. A conjoint reading of FIR and the statement(s) of victim recorded in terms of Sections 161 CrPC and also the statement given before the Doctor concerned who medically examined the victim, would indicate that the FIR was lodged mentioning therein that an unknown person enticed away the minor daughter (victim) of the complainant and revisionist and victim were known to each other and victim on her own volition accepted the company of the revisionist.

8. Further stated that a perusal of the statement recorded in terms of Section 164 CrPC also indicates that the victim on her own volition accepted the company of the appellant and it is also apparent from the record that there is no medical evidence available with the prosecution to support the case.9. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that taking note of period of incarceration as also the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme 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), according to 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, the revisionist is entitled to be released on bail. 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."

10. In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), the 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."

11. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that long period of detention is cause of action and he has submitted that second bail can be considered on this fresh ground. He has invited attention of this Court towards the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505. The relevant para-4 of the said judgment is quoted below:- "4. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the rival parties, specially the undisputed position that the petitioner has never been accused of having misused the concession of bail, we are of the view, that the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent is extremely unfair. Since all the material witnesses have been examined and cross-examined, the release of the petitioner on bail ought not to have been opposed, especially keeping in mind the medical condition of the petitioner."

(Emphasis supplied)

12. It is further stated that in these circumstances, the revisionist is entitled to be enlarged on bail and in case he is enlarged on bail, 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.

13. 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 has not disputed the above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist.

14. Thus, having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the statement(s) of the victim, medical opinion and period of incarceration as also the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future and the intent of Section 12 of the Act of 2015, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

15. The judgment and order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Special Judge, Children Court, Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2024, which was preferred against the order dated 13.03.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri, arising out of Case Crime No. 538 of 2023, under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Mitauli, District-Lakhimpur Kheri, are hereby set aside.

16. Let Juvenile X Thru. Mother In Case Crime No 538/2023 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 her 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 his counsel, failing which, the order of bail granted to Juvenile may be cancelled.

17. 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 24, 2025

Vinay/-