P (Juvenile) Thru. the Next Friend/ Mother vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1258 of 2025

¶3

P (Juvenile) Thru. The Next Friend/ Mother

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Dharmendra Kumar Shukla	Trivedi, Aditya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No.- 13

¶7

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶8

Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the private opposite party No. 2 despite service of notice, as appears from the Office Report dated 24.11.2025. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In these circumstances and also taking note of the age of the revisionist as well as the fact that similarly placed co-accused namely Rahul Tiwari has already been released on bail by this Court, the Court proceeded to hear the instant bail revision on merits.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, the learned AGA for the State of U.P., who has complete instructions in the mater and is ready to argue the case on merits, and perused the material placed on record.

¶10

Instant Criminal Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 30.09.2025 passed by Child Court/Special Judge, POCSO Act (Exclusive) First, Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No.52/2025 and the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli.

¶11

While pressing the instant bail revision, the learned counsel for the revisionist stated that revisionist is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶12

It is further stated that at the time of alleged incident the revisionist was aged about 15 years, 11 months and 01 days and this fact can be ascertained from the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli.

¶13

It is further stated that taking note of the age of revisionist on the date of incident and also Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015, the maximum punishment/sentence which could be awarded to the revisionist is three years.

¶14

It is further stated that the revisionist is languishing in jail since

¶15

CRLR No. 1258 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

04.12.2024, thus the period of incarceration comes to around more than 14 months.

¶18

It is also stated that similarly placed co-accused namely Rahul Tiwari has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1417 of 2025.

¶19

It is further stated that the informant/complainant (PW-1) has already been declared hostile and therefore it would be very difficult for the prosecution to prove/establish its case before the trial court against the applicant and other co-accused.

¶20

It is further stated that in these circumstances and also taking note of the period of incarceration, the instant revision is liable to be allowed and the revisionist is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In case he is enlarged on bail, 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.

¶21

Learned AGA, on the other hand, submitted that no illegality has been committed by the court concerned in rejecting the prayer of bail sought by the revisionist, as there was ample evidence against him. However, he has not disputed the above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist.

¶22

Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case particularly the period of incarceration and also the fact that similarly placed co-accused, named above, has already been released on bail by this Court, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed .

¶23

The impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2025 passed by Child Court/Special Judge, POCSO Act (Exclusive) First, Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No.52/2025 and the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli are hereby set aside.

¶24

Let Juvenile 'P', of aforesaid Case Crime Number be enlarged on bail, in the above mentioned case on executing a personal bond by his mother/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 mother that she 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 her counsel, failing which, the order of bail granted to Juvenile may be cancelled.

¶25

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.

¶26

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶27

February 25, 2026

¶28

Arun/-

¶29

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

P (Juvenile) Thru. the Next Friend/ Mother v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P (Juvenile) Thru. the Next Friend/ Mother v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

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

Anoop Soni vs Shri Shubham Singh Regional Passport Officer Lko.

Pratima Gupta vs Sri Amit Ghos / Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and Another

Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

X Juvenile Delinquent Thru His Brother vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow and 3 Others

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

Prabhat Mishra vs Bindravan Lal Sharma, Director Directorate of Higher Edu. Lko. and Another