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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47956

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1505 of 2024 Revisionist :- Juvenile R, Thru. His Father Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anand Kumar,Gyan Singh,Shyam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Case called out. The opposite party no.2/complainant chose not to appear before this Court to oppose the instant appeal despite service of notice, as appears from Annexure No.CA-1 to the counter affidavit of State. In these circumstances, this Court proceeded to hear the instant revision, which relates to enlargement of revisionist on bail, on merits.

¶6

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

¶7

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 12.11.2024, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2024 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 03.09.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.55 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.208 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 103(1), 238, 3(5) of B.N.S., Police Station- Patti, District- Pratapgarh.

¶8

It is stated that an FIR registered as FIR/Case Crime No.208 of 2024 at P.S.Patti, District- Pratapgarh, under Section 137(2) of B.N.S. was lodged on 02.07.2024 by opposite party no.2. This FIR indicates that the same was lodged against unknown persons. It further indicates that the minor son of opposite party no.2 was missing on 02.07.2024 and, therefore, a missing report was lodged.

¶9

Further submission is that during investigation the statement of opposite party no.2 was recorded and in the said statement the name of the revisionist was surfaced and after recording the statement of opposite party no.2, who is also coaccused, the prosecution apprehended the revisionist and opposite party no.2 as also one Roshan Lal and all the accused are in jail.

¶10

It is further submitted that there is no direct evidence available with the prosecution to connect the revisionist with the crime except the evidence of coaccused which is inadmissible in evidence.

¶11

It is further 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.

¶12

It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, is languishing in jail since 08.07.2024 and he is having no criminal history, which has not been opposed by the side opposite, 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, which is about 13 months, the juvenile is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In these circumstances, the revisionist is also entitled to be enlarged on bail and 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 A.G.A., 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 fact as stated that the revisionist was not named in the FIR and there is no direct evidence available with the prosecution to connect the revisionist with the crime except the evidence of co-accused one of whom is informant herself as also taking note of the period of incarceration of the revisionist, which is about 13 months, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed .

¶15

The impugned judgment and order dated 12.11.2024, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2024 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 03.09.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.55 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.208 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 103(1), 238, 3(5) of B.N.S., Police Station- Patti, District- Pratapgarh are set aside.

¶16

Let Juvenile 'X', 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 sister 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.

¶18

Order Date :- 14.8.2025

¶19

Anand/-

¶20

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile R, Thru. His Father 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Shahid @ Bablu Kujad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Arun Kumar Mishra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vikas Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Juvenile X Thru. His Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

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

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