Juvenile X Thru. His Natural Guardian, Mother Y Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46896

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 333 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Juvenile X Thru. His Natural Guardian, Mother Y

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow And Another

¶6

Counsel for Revisionist :- Vijay Kumar,Atul Kumar,Harish Chandra,Prashant Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Mishra

¶7

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶8

Heard Shri Atul Kumar Bhatt, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well Ms Shruti Verma, holding brief of Shri Sunil Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

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 21.02.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act (Exclusive)-I, Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No.67 of 2023 CNR No.UPRB010084762023, which was preferred against the order dated 10.11.2023, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli in Case No.118/2023, arising out of FIR /Case Crime No.229/2023, under Sections 364-A, 302, 201 I.P.C., at Police Station -Lalganj, District - Raebareli.

¶10

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.

¶11

It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, is languishing in jail since 18.05.2023 and in the observation home since 18.08.2023 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, the juvenile is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In these circumstances, the revisionist is entitled to be enlarged on bail and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may come

¶12

with the contact of the known and unknown bet criminals or may be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also submitted that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 15.05.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No. 368 of 2024, therefore, the revisionist is entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 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 they have not disputed the above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist.

¶14

Thus, having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the revision is allowed .

¶15

The impugned judgment and order dated 21.02.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act (Exclusive)-I, Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No.67 of 2023 CNR No.UPRB010084762023, which was preferred against the order dated 10.11.2023, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli in Case No.118/2023, arising out of FIR /Case Crime No.229/2023, under Sections 364-A, 302, 201 I.P.C., at Police Station -Lalganj, District - Raebareli are set aside.

¶16

Let Juvenile 'X' of the aforesaid Case Crime Number be enlarged on bail, in the above mentioned case on executing a personal bond by his mother Y/natural guardian of the revisionist 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 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 :- 11.8.2025

¶19

ML/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Juvenile X Thru. His Natural Guardian, Mother Y v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile X Thru. His Natural Guardian, Mother Y v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow 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

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

Smt. Phool Jahan and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Jaipal Singh Pundeer vs Dr. Jitendra Kumar Tomar, Director of Agriculture U.P. Krishi Bhawan Lucknow

Sujeet Pandey vs State of U.P. thru Secretary Home Deptt and 2 others

Firoz Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Sumitra and 2 Others vs Dr. Bijendra Singh, the V.C. of Acharya Narendra Dev University of Agri. and Techn. Faizabad