Juvenile Against Law, Under Guardian Thru. His Father Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 283 of 2025

Revisionist :- Juvenile Against Law, Under Guardian Thru. His Father Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Revisionist :- Shafaq Fatima,Seraj Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the revisionist annexing therewith the evidence of the victim recorded during trial and the counter affidavit filed by learned AGA are taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Seraj Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA. None appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2 despite sufficient service.

¶8

There is consensus among learned counsel for the parties that all the documents have been placed on record of this revision and they pray that this revision may be considered and disposed of on the basis of the same.

¶9

This Criminal Revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the Juvenile Court/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), District Balrampur in Criminal Appeal No.01/2025(Juvenile Against Law versus State of U.P.) and the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Balrampur, by means of which the bail application of the revisionist was rejected.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the case by filing false complaint against him. The revisionist was juvenile at the time of alleged incident. The complaint was entertained without any medical report. He further submits that the District Probation Officer had also given report dated 07.01.2025 in favour of the revisionist but without considering the same, the application for bail filed by the applicant was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board. He further submits that the revisionist had filed appeal, which has also been dismissed without considering the aforesaid and the grounds taken by the revisionist in the appeal.He further submits that the complainant i.e. the respondent no.2 is hostile and she has not supported the complaint, which is apparent from her evidence annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed today. He further submits that in case the revisionist is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the

¶11

liberty granted by this Court.

¶12

On the basis of above, submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the revisionist is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Learned AGA though opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the revisionist, but he could not contradict the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist.

¶14

Having considered submission of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is apparent that the complaint case was filed by the respondent no.2 against the revisionist under Section 323, 504, 506, 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Balrampur alleging that the revisionist, on the assurance of marriage, made physical relations with the respondent no.2 and got her relations with her husband broken and took away the respondent no.2 on 19.02.2022 and kept on making relations with her for about 8 days and on 06.03.2022 left her in her village. When the respondent no.2 asked the revisionist to take her with him and marry, he and the co-accuseds had beaten her slapping and with fist and also abused and made casteist remarks, the information of which was given at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Balrampur, where the revisionist was called but neither the F.I.R. was lodged nor medical examination of the respondent no.2 was got conducted. The revisionist being minor moved application for declaration of juvenile and he was declared juvenile by means of the order dated 12.11.2024 as mentioned in order passed by the Board. The revisionist moved an application for bail before the juvenile court, which was dismissed and the appeal filed by the revisionist has also been dismissed. Hence this revision has been filed.

¶15

No medical examination report of the respondent no.2 has been shown in complaint and summoning order. The District Probation Officer had submitted a report dated 07.01.2025, in which he had recommended in favour of the revisionist stating that the villagers have no objection in case of release of the revisionist but without considering the same, the bail application filed by the revisionist was rejected by means of the order dated 07.01.2025. The appellate court also dismissed the appeal without considering the aforesaid and the grounds taken by the revisionist. The respondent no.2 has also not supported the version of the complaint in the evidence during trial, which is apparent from the evidence of the respondent no.2 annexed with the supplementary affidavit.

¶16

Nothing has been shown or placed on record to show that the

¶17

release of revisionist will bring him into association with any person, criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. The reasons recorded by the Board and appellate court for denying bail are not sufficient.

¶18

In view of above, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the case for bail is made out.

¶19

The impugned orders dated 05.02.2025 passed by the Juvenile Court/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), District Balrampur in Criminal Appeal No.01/2025(Juvenile Against Law versus State of U.P.) and the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Balrampur are hereby set aside and the revision is allowed.

¶20

Let the revisionist convicted and sentenced in Complaint Case No.18/2022,arising out of Case Crime No.105/2023, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Balrampur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following condition:-

¶21

(i) The revisionist shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶22

(ii) He shall assist the trial court in expeditious disposal of trial.

¶23

In case of breach of aforesaid conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶24

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.

¶25

Order Date :- 23.7.2025 Akanksha Sri/-

¶26

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

Juvenile Against Law, Under Guardian 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 Against Law, Under Guardian 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

Ibrahim Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Raj Kishor Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Ankit Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ram Sewak and 8 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Sewak and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Nafees Vs State of U.P. and Anr.