Juvenile S, Thru. His Father Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Instant criminal revision under section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.8.2025 passed by the Special Judge POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal appeal (Juvenile) No. 16 of 2025 rejecting the appeal of the appellant and confirming the judgment and order dated 24.7.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board Ambedkar Nagar rejecting the bail application No. 210 of 2025 of the revisionist in case crime No. 14 of 2025, under section 137(2), 103(1), 238, 61(2) BNS, Police Station- Baskhari, District-Ambedkar Nagar.

¶11

Learned counsel for revisionist juvenile submits that revisionist is a juvenile in conflict of law who is stated to be 15 years of age at the time of the incident. According to the prosecution version, informant Lalji Tiwari, the grandfather of the deceased, had lodged an FIR in the concerned police station on the basis of a return report dated 19/01/2025

¶12

CRLR No. 1010 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

at 14:00 hours, wherein he stated that on the intervening night of 1819/01/2025 at 1:00 AM, his grand-daughter, aged about 17 years, was sleeping in her room alone. When he called her, he found no response from the room, and when he entered the room, he did not find her. Even after much effort, he could not trace her. He believed that Ashish Nishad had seduced and enticed away his granddaughter. The FIR was lodged under sections 137(2), 103(1), 238, 61(2) BNS against the revisionist, who is the named accused. During cross-examination of the investigation, police SI Jitendra Singh, the investigating officer of the case, found the dead body of the deceased, which was floating in a pond on 23/01/2025 on the basis of secret information. An inquest on the dead body was conducted on 23/01/2025, and a postmortem examination was carried out on 24/01/2025. However, in the postmortem report, no internal or external injuries were found. The approximate time and date of death was about 3 to 4 days. The cause and manner of death could not be ascertained; hence, viscera was preserved and sent to the forensic lab for chemical analysis. He further submitted that even in the viscera examination report, no chemical poison was detected therefore, the cause of death is still uncertain.

¶15

He further submitted that although in the FIR, a suspicion has been made against the revisionist but during investigation, no cogent evidence has been collected against him regarding complicity of the offenses. Witness Sanjay Dubey has also raised a suspicion that Ramashish, in association with co-accused Vishal and Shivam, killed the deceased and threw her dead body in a pond. In the postmortem report, only oozing of blood from the nostril has been mentioned. The two co-accused, Shivam and Vishal, were major and are said to have been seen by witnesses

¶16

CRLR No. 1010 of 2025

¶17

3

¶18

coming to village from the side of the pond. But it is nowhere stated that they were also accompanied by the revisionist. The co-accused Shivam and Vishal have already been released on bail by orders of this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.3556 of 2025 on 24/04/2025 and in another Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4155/25 on 16/06/2025.

¶19

He next submitted that chargesheet has already been filed and trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future. Witness Agya Ram has stated in his statement under section 161 CrPC that he had seen Vishal and Shivam from side of the pond towards village in the intervening night of 18/19-01-2025, at around 12:45 hours. Thus, the case of revisionist stands on better footing than the co-accused, who were major have already been enlarged on bail.

¶20

He lastly submitted that it is trite law that gravity of the offenses is not only decisive factor while considering the prayer for bail made on behalf of the juvenile accused. He also submitted that in social investigation report, the DPO has stated that the juvenile is unmarried. He has three siblings. The relationship between the juvenile and family members is cordial. He is unemployed. There appears lack of discipline in the juvenile. Thus, no adverse report has been made in social investigation report of DPO against the juvenile which makes him disentitle for bail.

¶21

Per contra, learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel respondent no.2 have jointly opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the revisionist is named in the FIR and informant and parents of the deceased had raised strong suspicion against the revisionist in the commission of offense and have stated that he must have played crucial role in missing

¶22

CRLR No. 1010 of 2025

¶23

4

¶24

of the victim. However, they did not dispute other factual submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist which are which are based on record.

¶25

Considering the rival submission made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offense, complicity of the accused, nature of offense led against the revisionist, also the fact that cause of death could not be ascertained even after submission of viscera examination report, and two major co-accused have already been released on bail by order of this Court, there is nothing substantial in social investigation report of the juvenile. I found it a fit case for grant of bail.

¶26

As per Section 12 of the Juvinile Act three contingencies have been said in which the bail of the juvenile can be rejected:-

¶27

A. If the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or

¶28

B. Expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or

¶29

C. that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶30

Keeping in view the above grounds, I find that these parameters are not applicable in a case of revisionist.

¶31

Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of both the side and the facts that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence the revision has substance and it is accordingly allowed and the judgment and order dated 20.8.2025 passed by the Special Judge POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal appeal (Juvenile) No. 16 of 2025 and the judgment and

¶32

CRLR No. 1010 of 2025

¶33

5

¶34

order dated 24.7.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board Ambedkar Nagar are set aside .

¶35

Let the revisionist Juvenile S involved in the aforementioned case crime be released on bail, on his guardian furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶36

i. The revisionists (juvenile) will not tamper with the evidence.

¶37

ii. The revisionists (juvenile) will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶38

iii. The revisionists (juvenile) will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶39

iv. The revisionists (juvenile) will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless their personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶40

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶41

December 8, 2025 KR

¶42

Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Juvenile S, Thru. His Father v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

Juvenile S, Thru. His Father v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashish Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 7 Others

Atul Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Ashok Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Ajay Pandey Alias Shibbu Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Vahidulnisha and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mithlesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another