X Thru. His Father Jaswant vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 371 of 2024

¶3

X Thru. His Father Jaswant

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Jayveer Rajput, Vinod Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 13

¶8

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶9

Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the private opposite party No. 2 despite service of notice, as appears from the order sheet. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In these circumstances and also taking note of the order of this Court dated 07.01.2026, which says "It is made clear that on the next dates fixed in the case, the case would not be adjourned in the absence of the opposite party No. 2 and the matter would be heard and decided on merits and appropriate orders would be passed in the case in first call" , the Court proceeded to hear the instant bail revision on merits.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, the learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the material placed on record.

¶11

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 29.03.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Unnao in Criminal Appeal No.11/2024 and the order dated 22.09.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Unnao.

¶12

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.

¶13

It is further stated that if the case of prosecution is taken on its face value even in that eventuality the revisionist is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of period of incarceration, which comes to around more than three years as the revisionist is languishing in jail since 17.08.2022, and also that the trial of the case is not proceedings in the manner as required under Section 35 of POCSO Act, as per which the trial should preferably be completed within a period of one year.

¶14

On the aforesaid aspect of the case, reference has been made to the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P.(1978) 1 SCC 240 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 115 ; Babu Singh v. State of U.P.(1978) 1 SCC 579 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 133;

¶15

CRLR No. 371 of 2024

¶16

2

¶17

Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 23 ; Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 93; Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisioners) v. Union of India (1995) 4 SCC 695 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 822; Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713; Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI(2022) 10 SCC 51 : (2023) 1 SCC (Cri) 1; Paras Ram Vishnoi v. CBI, reported in, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3606; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh case(2024) 9 SCC 813 : (2025) 1 SCC (Cri) 222 , which relates to enlarging the accused during trial on account of long period of incarceration.

¶18

It is further stated that at the time of incident as alleged in the FIR in issue i.e. FIR No. 0273/2022 dated 16.06.2022 lodged at Police Station- Purwa, District- Unnao by means of application dated 18.06.2020 preferred in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶19

It is also stated that as per the FIR the revisionist in the night of 1011.06.2020 established physical relations forcefully with the prosecutrix/victim, aged about 14 years, (daughter of informant) and the FIR further indicates that the prosecutrix/victim was differently abled/mentally unfit/unsound.

¶20

It is further stated that the story as indicated in the FIR supported by the statement of prosecutrix/victim against the revisionist is not correct and this aspect of the case can be inferred from the fact(s) that (i) as per the FIR the revisionist established physical relations with the prosecutrix/victim in the night of 10-11.06.2020 and the FIR in regard to the same was lodged by preferring an application in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; (ii) medical examination of the prosecutrix/victim was carried out on 24.06.2022 and the doctor concerned could not find any injury either external or internal over the body of the prosecutrix/victim and (iii) if the crime was committed, as alleged in the FIR, then the prosecutrix/victim ought to have been treated.

¶21

It is further stated that the mother and father of the prosecutrix/victim have already been examined before the trail court and this aspect of the case is evident from the copy of statement, on record, of the father of prosecutrix/victim concluded on 07.02.2024 and copy of statement, on record, of the mother of prosecutrix/victim concluded on 18.03.2024.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case particularly the period of incarceration and also the judgments, referred above, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed .

¶25

CRLR No. 371 of 2024

¶26

3

¶27

The impugned judgment and order dated 29.03.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Unnao in Criminal Appeal No.11/2024 and the order dated 22.09.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Unnao are hereby set aside.

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶31

February 12, 2026

¶32

Arun/-

¶33

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

X Thru. His Father Jaswant v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

X Thru. His Father Jaswant v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home 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

Shashi Bhushan Singh vs Ms. Kamini Ratan Chauhan Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. State Tax Lko.

Musabbar @ Gabdu @ Musabbar Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Kanchan Rastogi @ Kanchan Soni vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

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

Girja Shanker Mishra vs Santosh Kumar Sinha, Addl. General Manager/Unit Head I.T.I. Ltd. Gonda

Rinki Gautam and Another vs Sri Shubham Shukla Distt. Basic Education Officer Distt. Balrampur