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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 712 of 2025

¶3

Juvenile X Thru. His Mother

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Ajeet Singh, Subhas	Kumar Yada Amit Tripathi, h Chandra	v, Akash Rudresh Yadav,	Deep Pandey, Suneel
	Kumar	Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 27

¶9

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist(Juvenile X), learned AGA for the State respondnet no.1 and perused the record.

¶11

Instant criminal revision under section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22/05/2025, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Lucknow, in Criminal Appeal No.130 of 2025, and the judgment and order dated 29/04/2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow, in Miscellaneous Case No.54 of 2025, arising out of FIR No.543 of 2024, under Sections 70(2)BNS and 5G/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow, wherein the learned courts below have rejected the bail applications of the revisionist.

¶12

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that both the courts below have rejected the bail applications of the revisionist against settled law regarding the grant or refusal of bail to a juvenile in conflict of law. It is

¶13

CRLR No. 712 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

held in various judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court that the gravity of the offense is not the sole consideration for refusal of bail to the juvenile. The revisionist has been in the observation home since 21/3/2025. He is not a man of criminal antecedents. He has not committed any crime and has been falsely implicated in this case. He was declared juvenile in conflict of law by the Juvenile Justice Board by order dated 05/04/2008. On 05/04/2008, on the date of the last incident, his age was found to be 16 years, 7 months, 11 days. The victim has given different versions of the incident in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNS; therefore, there is material contradiction in both the statements. The medical examination of the victim does not support the case of the prosecution. The District Probation Officer, in its report, has stated nothing against the social and family atmosphere of the revisionist. The impugned orders were passed without considering the law, and the factual and legal propositions in the right perspective. The co-accused Aditya Nandan, who is major, has been assigned similar role to that of the present revisionist and has already been enlarged on bail by order dated 09/10/2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9650 of 2025. In the social investigation report, the District Provision Officer has stated that his father is a daily wager in Maharashtra and his mother is a homemaker. He deserves to be given proper guidance. The bail of juvenile can only be refused on the grounds mentioned in Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed prayer for bail, but he did not dispute the factual submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist, which are based on the record.

¶17

CRLR No. 712 of 2025

¶18

3

¶19

Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that no material appears on record in support of the grounds grounds mentioned in Section 18 of the Act for refusal of bail to a juvenile, and keeping in view the fact that the co-accused, who is a major, has already been released on bail by order of this court, I am of the opinion that the learned court below has wrongly rejected the prayer for bail made on behalf of the revisionist; therefore, the revisionist deserves to be released on bail.

¶20

Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of both the side and the facts that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence the revision has substance and it is accordingly allowed and the order dated 22/05/2025, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Lucknow, in Criminal Appeal No.130 of 2025, and the judgment and order dated 29/04/2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow, in Miscellaneous Case No.54 of 2025, arising out of FIR No.543 of 2024, under Sections 70(2)BNS and 5G/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow are set aside .

¶21

Let the revisionist, Juvenile X involved in the aforementioned case crime be released on bail, on his guardian furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶22

i. The revisionists (juvenile) will not tamper with the evidence.

¶23

ii. The revisionists (juvenile) will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶24

iii. The revisionists (juvenile) will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶25

CRLR No. 712 of 2025

¶26

4

¶27

iv. The revisionists (juvenile) will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless their personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶28

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶29

December 3, 2025 KR

¶30

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile X Thru. His Mother v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Man Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Deptt. Lko

Irshad Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Gangaram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Mani Ram and Another vs the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Bhawana Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Daya Nand vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another