X (Minor ) of Case Crime No 715/2024 Thru. His Father Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36421

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 678 of 2025

¶4

Revisionist :- X (Minor ) Of Case Crime No 715/2024 Thru. His Father

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Yadav,Devansh Singh Chauhan,Manoj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶7

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

¶8

2. Learned A.G.A. has stated that the notice has been served upon opposite party no.2.

¶9

3. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist through his father under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act-2015 (hereinafter referred to as "J.J. Act, 2015) to allow the present revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 25.04.2025 passed by Juvenile Court, Court No.44, Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No.0017 of 2025 as well as order dated 03.02.2025 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Barabanki in Misc. Application No.4 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.0715 of 2024, under Sections 70(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S., Sections 5(L)(G)/6 of POCSO Act and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station

¶10

Ramnagar, Disrict Barabanki and also prays to release the delinquent/applicant on bail in the aforesaid case.

¶11

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in the present case, the delinquent/applicant was aged about 16 years, 4 months, and 26 days and was a juvenile at the time of the alleged incident. It is further submitted that the present revisionist is innocent and has committed no offence but has been falsely implicated in this case with the false allegation of inserting his finger into the private part of the victim, who was a minor.

¶12

5. It is also submitted that the incident is said to have taken place on 10.11.2024, but the F.I.R. was lodged on 08.12.2024, after a delay of about one month, without any explanation. It is further submitted that, in the medical examination, no external or internal injury was found on the person of the injured/victim to suggest that such a mischief was committed by the revisionist with the victim.

¶13

6. The juvenility of the delinquent was not considered either by the Juvenile Justice Board or by the appellate court, and even the provisions contained under Section 12 of the aforesaid Act were not considered by the trial court. The report of the District Probation Officer is also not adverse to the delinquent.

¶14

7. The delinquent has been in the Juvenile Care Home since 15.12.2024, and his psychological condition is being adversely affected. Therefore, it is requested that the orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate court be set aside and the criminal revision be allowed.

¶15

8. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the child/victim was dumb, as per the statement of her mother, and was in distress. It was the reason that the offence committed by the revisionist came to the knowledge of the victim's mother and it was also the reason for the delay in lodging the F.I.R.

¶16

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned A.G.A., the perusal of the record, the provisions contained under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court, the injury report of the victim and the delay in lodging the F.I.R., there appears to be sufficient ground to release the revisionist on bail during the pendency of the inquiry/trial, therefore, the orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the learned appellate court are liable to be set aside.

¶17

10. Accordingly, the orders passed by Juvenile

¶18

Justice Board dated 03.02.2025 and the appellate court dated 25.04.2025 are, hereby, set aside and the present criminal revision is hereby, allowed .

¶19

11. It is directed that delinquent/applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case on executing person bond by the revisionist (father of the delinquent) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board concerned on following conditions :-

¶20

(i) The natural guardian/father will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the revisionist will not be permitted to go into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical, or psychological danger and further that the father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.

¶21

(ii) The natural guardian/father will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juvenile will pursue his study at the appropriate level which he would be encouraged to do besides other constructive activities and not be allowed to waste his time in unproductive and excessive recreational pursuits.

¶22

(iii) Juvenile and the natural guardian/father will report to the Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month.

¶23

(iv) The Probation Officer will keep a strict vigil on the activities of the juvenile and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board concerned on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.

¶24

(Subhash Chandra Sharma, J)

¶25

Order Date :- 25.6.2025 A.Dewal

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

X (Minor ) of Case Crime No 715/2024 Thru. His Father v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

X (Minor ) of Case Crime No 715/2024 Thru. His Father v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. 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

Chandrasen Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko and Another

Rahul Verma Vs Addl. Magistrate Faizabad and Another

Ram Abhilakh @ Ram Abhilash and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Prem Chandra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shiv Shankar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Anas and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another