Allowed

Bal Apchari a (Child Delinquent a) Thru. His Brother v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Aug 2025CRLRD/541/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A juvenile in custody since 19.11.2022 for offences under IPC 376AB and POCSO filed a revision under Section 102 JJ Act after his appeal failed. With victim, informant and her father declared hostile, the court condoned delay, set aside both lower orders and enlarged the juvenile on bail with guardianship undertakings.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; impugned orders set aside; juvenile enlarged on bail via sister/natural guardian's bond with two sureties, brother's undertaking and monthly reporting to District Probation Officer.

Bal Apchari a (Child Delinquent a) Thru. His… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48603

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 541 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Bal Apchari A (Child Delinquent A) Thru. His Brother Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Surendra Singh,Jyoti Singh,Rudra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Adarsh Shukla,Prince Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

C.M.A. No.1 of 2024 (Application for Condonation of Delay)

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Adarsh Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no.2/complainant, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Considering the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of application, under consideration, and the fact that the same has not been opposed, this Court is of the view that the application is liable to be allowed.

¶9

Accordingly, the application is allowed. The delay in filing the revision is condoned.

¶10

Order on Revision

¶11

Though the victim has not been impleaded as a party, though required and despite the same this Court proceeded to hear the present revision as victim, her mother and father have been declared hostile.

¶12

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 16.02.2023, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Special Judge Children Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2023 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 06.01.2023, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor) arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.1370/2022, under Sections 376AB I.P.C. & Section 3(m)/6 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Kotwali Sadar, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶13

While pressing the revision it is stated that before the trial court, the victim (P.W.3), informant/complainant (P.W.1) and father of victim (P.W.2) have been declared hostile.

¶14

It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, having no criminal history, is

¶15

languishing in jail since 19.11.2022, 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.

¶16

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant, 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.

¶17

Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that the victim (P.W.3), informant/complainant (P.W.1) and father of victim (P.W.2) have been declared hostile during trial as also the period of incarceration, i.e. about 2 years and 9 months, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed .

¶18

The impugned judgment and order dated 16.02.2023, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Special Judge Children Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2023 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. State of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 06.01.2023, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor) arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.1370/2022, under Sections 376AB I.P.C. & Section 3(m)/6 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Kotwali Sadar, District- Lakhimpur Kheri are set aside.

¶19

Let Juvenile 'X', of aforesaid Case Crime Number be enlarged on bail, in the above mentioned case on executing a personal bond by his sister/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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 19.8.2025

¶22

Anand/Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bal Apchari a (Child Delinquent a) Thru. His Brother v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bal Apchari a (Child Delinquent a) Thru. His Brother v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. 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

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Khairul Nisha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dr. Shoab Ahmad Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Bal Apchari a (Child Delinquent a) Thru. His Brother vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and 3 Others

Juvenile X Thru. His Natural Guardian Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Bhupendra Kumar Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another