Allowed

Juvenile Delinquent R Thru. His Brother v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2025CRLRD/373/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision under Section 102 JJ Act against appellate court's order refusing bail to a juvenile booked under POCSO and other provisions. Court condoned delay, allowed revision, set aside orders below and enlarged the juvenile on bail with guardian's bond, sureties and probation conditions.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; impugned orders set aside; juvenile enlarged on bail on personal bond by brother/natural guardian with two sureties, undertaking, and monthly reporting for one year.

Juvenile Delinquent R Thru. His Brother Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49233

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 373 of 2025

¶4

Revisionist :- Juvenile Delinquent R Thru. His Brother Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Arpit Verma,Shivanshu Goswami Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶7

(Crl. Misc. Application for Condonation of Delay/I.A. No.1 of 2025)

¶8

As per office report dated 20.08.2025, notice upon the opposite party No.2 has been served. However, when the case is taken, no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.2 to oppose the application.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist/applicant, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶10

Finding the grounds/reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay to be sufficient, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. The delay in filing the revison is condoned.

¶11

(Order on the Criminal Revision)

¶12

As per office report dated 20.08.2025, notice upon the opposite party No.2 has been served. However, when the case is taken, no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.2 to oppose the revision. In these circumstances, the court proceeded to decide the revision.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶14

This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short "Act of 2015") read with Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 05.04.2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO

¶15

Act, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.57/2025, which was preferred against the order dated 18.02.2025, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in Misc. Case No.15/2025, arising out of FIR No.557/2024, under Sections 5 (g)/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 70(2), 127 of the BNS and Section 3 (2) (V) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station - Gomti Nagar, District- Lucknow.

¶16

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist who has no criminal history is in jail since 02.12.2024, accordingly the period of incarceration is about 09 months 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 which however is subject to other provisions of the Act of 2015 including Section 21 of the Act of 2015 and as such, taking note of the period of incarceration, the juvenile is entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that the victim/prosecutrix, who has leveled allegation during the investigation against the revisionist has not been examined till date, however, her mother and the real brother of the prosecutrix, an eye witness, have not supported the prosecution story before the trial court and therefore they were declared hostile and permission was granted to the prosecution side to cross examine the witnesses but nothing could be elicited against the revisionist. It is also submitted that there is no medical examination report to support the prosecution story as the medical examination was denied by the prosecutrix/victim. 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 with the contact of the known and unknown bet criminals or may be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. 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 he has not disputed the above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist.

¶18

Thus, having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case including that there is no medical evidence to support the prosecution case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

¶19

The impugned judgment and order dated 05.04.2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.57/2025, which was preferred against the order dated 18.02.2025, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in Misc. Case No.15/2025, arising out of FIR No.557/2024, under Sections 5 (g)/6 of the POCSO Act

¶20

and Section 70(2), 127 of the BNS and Section 3 (2) (V) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station - Gomti Nagar, District- Lucknow are set aside.

¶21

Let Juvenile Delinquent "R" of the aforesaid Case Crime Number be enlarged on bail, in the above mentioned case on executing a personal bond by his brother/natural guardian 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 brother that he 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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 21.8.2025

¶24

ML/-

¶25

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

Juvenile Delinquent R Thru. His Brother v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile Delinquent R Thru. His Brother v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anchal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 10 Others

Tribhuwan Patel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Zahida Khatoon Vs Civil Judge (J.D) Ftc Women Atrocities Bahraich and 7 Others

Krishan Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Abhai Kumar Khandelwal and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Mohd. Javed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another