Aniket Kumar Thru. His Father Balgovind Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

"Case called out. Although name of Shri Ram Asarey Verma, Advocate is printed in the cause list, but when the case is taken up, no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.2 to oppose the appeal. However, learned A.G.A. is present for the State.

¶11

In view of the above, the case is adjourned today.

¶12

List this case in the 10.09.2025, in terms of earlier order.

¶13

It is made clear that on the next date of listing, the case would not be adjourned in the absence of the opposite party No.2 and the matter would be heard and decided on merits and appropriate orders would be passed in the case in first call. "

¶14

Today when the case was called out, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 2 to oppose the present appeal. In this view of the matter, this Court proceeded to hear the instant revision with the assistance of learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶15

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 12.09.2024, passed by the Appellate Court, Lakhimpur Kheri, in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2024, which was preferred against the order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice

¶16

CRLR No. 1418 of 2024

¶17

2

¶18

Board, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 67 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 36 of 2023, under Sections 364, 302, 201 and 34 IPC, Police Station- Gauriphanta, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶19

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the co-accused Shiva having similar role has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 06.08.2025 passed in CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 6623 of 2024 . A copy of the order placed before this Court is taken on record.

¶20

In these circumstances, the revisionist is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the revisionist is liable to be allowed.

¶21

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the revisionist. However, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the revisionist 's counsel.

¶22

Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and gone through the contents of the revision, impugned orders, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents.

¶23

Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, including that co-accused namely Shiva has already been granted bail by this Court as also the fact that is a case of circumstancial evidence and also the period of incarceration, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed .

¶24

The impugned judgment and order dated 12.09.2024, passed by the Appellate Court, Lakhimpur Kheri, in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2024, which was preferred against the impugned order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 67 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 36 of 2023, under Sections 364, 302, 201 and 34 IPC, Police Station- Gauriphanta, District- Lakhimpur Kheri, are hereby set aside.

¶25

Let Aniket Kumar Thru. His Father Balgovind 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 brother that he will

¶26

CRLR No. 1418 of 2024

¶27

3

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

September 10, 2025 Mohit Singh/-

¶31

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Aniket Kumar Thru. His Father Balgovind v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aniket Kumar Thru. His Father Balgovind v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ranjit Yadav and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Atul Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shiv Kumari and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dinesh Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Juvenile X Thru. His Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Dharmatma Prasad and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another