Juvenile X Thru. His Mother in Case Cr. No. 291/2024 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48266

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1447 of 2024

Revisionist :- Juvenile X Thru. His Mother In Case Cr. No. 291/2024 Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Yogeshwar Sharan Srivastava,Ram Krishna Pratap Singh,Sant Prasad Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2/complainant despite service of notice, as appears from the letter of C.J.M., Gonda dated 16.12.2024. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In these circumstances, the Court proceeded to hear the instant bail revision on merits.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

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 25.10.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Gonda in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2024 and the order dated 18.09.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda in Case Crime No.291/2024, under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC, Police StationKarnellganj, District- Gonda.

¶9

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 and misconceived.

¶10

It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, is languishing in jail since 24.06.2024 and he is having no criminal history, which has not been opposed by the learned AGA, and as per Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015, the maximum punishment which could be awarded to a juvenile is three years and as such, taking note of the period of incarceration, the juvenile is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

It is further stated that co-accused/Gulshan has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 17.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1386 of 2025. The copy of order dated 17.07.2025 placed before this Court is taken on record. The relevant portion of the order dated 17.07.2025, referred, is extracted hereunder:-

¶12

"3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant is in jail since 24.06.2024 in Case Crime No.291 of 2024 under Sections 302/34, 201 of IPC, Police Station

¶13

Karnailganj, District Gonda.

¶14

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 15.06.2024 but the FIR has been lodged on 22.06.2024 without explaining the delay of seven days. In the impugned FIR, the allegation has been levelled against two accused persons including the present applicant. Most specific allegation has been levelled against the present applicant. This is a case of circumstantial evidence and the present applicant has been implicated on the basis of suspicion. There is no eye witness account. At the time of recording his evidence, the complainant/ informant has not supported the prosecution version, rather has stated that he had not levelled any allegation against the present applicant and he had not seen the accused - Gulshan killing his brother. Even the PW-2 has also not supported the prosecution version. During the course of the cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that he was not known to the present applicant and he had not seen incident in question. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the trial is going on and the present applicant undertakes that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. If he is released on bail, he shall abide by all terms and conditions and shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

5. On the other hand, Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant and submits that he is not entitled for grant of bail but could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

6. Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that in the FIR, the date of incident has been indicated as 15.06.2024 but the FIR has been lodged on 22.06.2024 without explaining the delay; the present applicant has been implicated on the basis of suspicion; there is no eye witness account; the complainant/ informant and the PW-2 have not supported the prosecution version, rather the complainant has stated that he had not levelled any allegation against the present applicant and he had not seen the accused killing his brother; during course of crossexamination, PW-2 has stated that he was not known to the present applicant and he had not seen incident in question; the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly, I am of the view that the applicant may be released on bail in this case.

¶17

7. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶18

8. Let the applicant- Gulshan, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-"

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed .

¶22

The impugned judgment and order dated 25.10.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Gonda in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2024 and the order dated 18.09.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda in Case Crime No.291/2024, under Sections 302, 201 and

¶23

34 IPC, Police Station- Karnellganj, District- Gonda, are hereby set aside.

¶24

Let Juvenile 'X', 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 his 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 her counsel, failing which, the order of bail granted to Juvenile may be cancelled.

¶25

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.

¶26

Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Arun/-

¶27

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

Juvenile X Thru. His Mother in Case Cr. No. 291/2024 v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile X Thru. His Mother in Case Cr. No. 291/2024 v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

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

Juggi Lal and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addit. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Pramod Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mr. X (Minor) Thru. His Natural Guardian/Mother vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Mohd. Rasheed vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Juvenile Delinquent X Being Minor Respresented Thru. Natural Guardian His Mother vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Juvenile X Thru. His Mother in Case Cr. No. 291/2024 vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another