Juvenile X (Minor) Thru. His Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 450 of 2024

¶3

Juvenile X (Minor) Thru. His Father

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief S Another	ecy.	Home Lko. And .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	:	Akashana Srivastava, Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, Shashank Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A., Kamlesh Kumar Shukla
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 order sheet. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In these circumstances and also taking note of the order of this Court dated 24.09.2025, which says "It is made clear that the case would not be adjourned on the next dates in absence of opposite party No. 2 and the same would be heard on merits as the issue relates to enlargement of revisionist on bail" , 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. 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 19.03.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 14, Sitapur in Criminal Appeal No.08/2024 and the order dated 17.02.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur.

¶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 it is a case of circumstantial evidence and in fact there is no witness of last seen in the instant case.

¶13

It is is further stated that merely on the basis of apprehension, the revisionist, who informed about the death of one Subhash (aged about 5 years) s/o informant namely Indrajeet @ Tannu to other son namely Akash (aged about 9 years) of the informant that the body of Subhash is lying in an agricultural field of Bananas, has been implicated in the instant case.

¶14

It is further stated that the revisionist has been implicated on the basis of statement of one Aditya (aged about 6 years) s/o Bhallu whose statement was recorded on the next date of lodging of the FIR i.e. on 22.05.2023 and it appears that this witness is the planted witness of the story of prosecution.

¶15

It is further stated that a perusal of the FIR in issue indicates that it was the revisionist who informed about the death of deceased. The FIR also

¶16

CRLR No. 450 of 2024

¶17

2

¶18

indicates that the same was lodged on the basis of apprehension that the revisionist must have committed the crime on account of previous enmity. However, this enmity has not been established by the prosecution by recording the statements of independent witnesses of the vicinity.

¶19

It is further stated that the revisionist, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 23.05.2023 and taking note of the aforesaid facts and also the period of incarceration as well as various pronouncements in this regard, which includes 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; 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, 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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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 .

¶22

The impugned judgment and order dated 19.03.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 14, Sitapur in Criminal Appeal No.08/2024 and the order dated 17.02.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Sitapur are hereby set aside.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

January 20, 2026 Arun/-

¶26

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶27

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

Juvenile X (Minor) Thru. His Father v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

Juvenile X (Minor) Thru. His Father v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. 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

Riyaz Ahmed @ Chaudhary vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Om Prakash Sharma and 15 Others vs Sri Ajay Chauhan, Prin. Secy. of U.P. Deptt. of P.W.D. Lko. and Another

X Juvenile Thru. His Father Shiv Dayal Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

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

Gulam Rabbani Siddiqui vs Mr. Deepak Verma, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raniganj, Pratapgarh and Another

X Juvenile Thru. His Mother/Guardian vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl./Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko and 3 Others