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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 522 of 2025

¶3

Master X Juvenile Thru. His Father

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

3 ters		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) :	Mohit Sharma, Mohammad Sae Srivastava, Shiv	Lalu Prasad Bhatt, m Shiraz, Rashmi Bahadur Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s):	G.A., Jagdish Shravan Kumar	Prasad Verma,

¶8

Court No. - 27

¶9

HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶10

Heard Shri Lalu Prasad Bhatt, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Shri Shravan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2.

¶11

The captioned criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in Case Crime No./F.I.R. No.495 of 2024, registered under Sections 64(1), 137(2), 96, 127(2) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 5/6 of P.O.C.S.O. Act, 2012, Police Station-Chinhat, DistrictLucknow, whereby the application for bail filed by the revisionist had been rejected.

¶12

The revisionist through this criminal revision has also challenged the order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Children Court/Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act), Lucknow, whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist had been dismissed and the order passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow had been affirmed.

¶13

It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that it had been alleged in the First Information Report that the victim and her friend, on the call of the revisionist, went to Bahraich to see a fair and there revisionist had committed rape on the victim and her friend was sitting

¶14

CRLR No. 522 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

outside the door of the room. It has further been contended that further allegation in the F.I.R. is that the revisionist had made an objectionable video and had forwarded it to the family members of the victim and made it viral.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has submitted that the entire prosecution story, on its face, is quite impossible as the victim along with her friend went to Bahraich and as per allegation when she was raped, her friend was sitting just outside the room but the friend of the victim has not been examined by the Investigating Officer and her statement has not been recorded.

¶18

It has further been argued that the allegation in respect of the revisionist having forwarded the objectionable video to the family members and making it viral, on its face, is absolutely false as the Investigating Officer has not recovered any such video and has not made it part of the case diary.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has vehemently argued that the entire prosecution story, on its face, is absolutely false and therefore, the revisionist is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶20

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Shri Shravan Kumar, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 have opposed this criminal revision.

¶21

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that as per the allegation levelled in the F.I.R., the victim along with her friend went to Bahraich and there revisionist raped her, while her friend was sitting just outside the room but the Investigating Officer has not recorded statement of the friend of the victim.

¶22

I further find that as per the allegations, revisionist had forwarded certain objectionable video to the family members of the victim and had made it viral, but the Investigating Officer neither has recovered the said video nor has made it part of the case diary.

¶23

11. Prima facie, this Court finds that the revisionist has a case for being enlarged on bail.

¶24

Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that this criminal revision deserves

CRLR No. 522 of 2025

3

to be allowed.

Accordingly, the criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in Case No.03 of 2025 and the order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Children Court/Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act), Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2025, are hereby set aside.

¶29

Learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow/competent court is hereby directed to enlarge the revisionist on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing two sureties and a personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶30

(i.) The revisionist shall cooperate in early disposal of the case without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

¶31

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

¶32

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶33

November 11, 2025 akhilesh/-

¶34

(Manjive Shukla,J.)

¶35

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Master X Juvenile Thru. His Father v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajan Kumar Kanoujia and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Medical Education Lko. and 4 Others

Juvenile Delinquent X (Minor ) Thru. His Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mr. X through His Brothers, Brother in-Law B vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Rajan Chaturvedi and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Juvenile S, Thru. His Brother vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Sarvesh Yadav @ Sarvesh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another