X Juvenile Delinquent of Case Crime No. 154/24 Thru. His Father Xxxx Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18917

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1226 of 2024 Revisionist :- X Juvenile Delinquent Of Case Crime No. 154/24 Thru. His Father Xxxx Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Saurabh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhirendra Pratap Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA on behalf of the respondents and Sri Virendra Singh, holding brief of Sri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶6

The present criminal revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred against the order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Juvenile Court, Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2024 wherein they have confirmed the order dated 16.08.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli and rejected the bail application of the juvenile revisionist.

¶7

It has been submitted that the revisionist is a juvenile and accused in Case Crime No.154 of 2024, under Sections 376(3) IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act at Police Station - Jagatpur, District - Raebareli. According to the first information report which has been lodged on 14.06.2024 at Police Station - Jagatpur, District - Raebareli, it was stated by the complainant who is the mother of the minor victim, has stated that the revisionist has enticed her daughter and committed rape upon her. It was stated that the said incident came to light only when complaint of pain in her stomach and she was medically examined and the doctor disclosed that she is pregnant. It is thereafter that she informed the parents about the repeated incident of rape committed by the accused / revisionist. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also, she has supported the case of the prosecution. Counsel for

¶8

the revisionist has submitted that age of the revisionist at the time of the incident was 12 years 7 months and 15 days and as per the report of the District Probation Officer, there is no adverse material against the juvenile existing on the record. With regard to the merits of the case, it was stated that the first information report has been lodged after lapse of 7 months and no proper explanation is forthcoming to the said delay. It was further stated that juvenile does not have any criminal history and is in jail for last more than 9 months, therefore, deserves to be released on bail.

¶9

Bail application has been vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondents. It is stated that looking into the seriousness of the offence and also the fact that the minor prosecutrix has also delivered a child in the meanwhile, no leniency deserves to be shown to be juvenile and consequently prayed for rejection of the bail application.

¶10

Having heard the rival contentions and specially the fact that there is no adverse material in the report of the District Probation Officer, nor is any ground stated therein that in case the juvenile is released he may further associate with known criminals of expose into moral and physical and psychological danger. Considering the merits of the case as well as the fact that the revisionist has already spent 9 months in jail, I find a fit case for grant for bail.

¶11

Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the orders dated 11.09.2024 and 16.08.2024 are set aside .

¶12

Let revisionist Juvenile Delinquent 'S' (Minor) , in pending revision, be released on bail in Case No. 173 of 2024, Crime No.154 of 2024, under Sections 376(3) IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station - Jagatpur, District - Raebareli on his

¶13

furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

i) The revisionist shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶15

(ii) The revisionist shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iii) In case, the revisionist misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the revisionist fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iv) The revisionist shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the revisionist is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

[Alok Mathur,J.]

¶19

Order Date :- 2.4.2025 / KR

¶20

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

X Juvenile Delinquent of Case Crime No. 154/24 Thru. His Father Xxxx v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

X Juvenile Delinquent of Case Crime No. 154/24 Thru. His Father Xxxx v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

Narendra Mohan @ Neeraj Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ankur @ Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Sharafat Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Risiram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Chetram vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. of Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ashutosh Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and Another