Juvenile X , Thru. His Natural Guardian /Mother Y vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 539 of 2025

¶3

Juvenile X , Thru. His Natural Guardian /Mother Y

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

eptt. o. n ters	.....	Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Mulayam Singh	Yadav,
	Divya Prakash,	Manav
	Gupta, Mohd.	Shahid
	Akhtar, Pankaj	Kumar
	Tripathi, Praveen	Kumar
	Yadav, Saquib Zia K	han
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Sudhir Kumar

¶8

Court No. - 13

¶9

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶10

Case called out.

¶11

No one appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 & 5.

¶12

Considering the stop order dated 23.09.2025, this court proceeded to hear the present revision on merits.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A for the State of U.P. 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") has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26.03.2025, passed by Children Court, Court Room No.44 Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No. 016 of 2025 and the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Barabanki arising out of Case Crime No. 51 of 2025, under

¶15

CRLR No. 539 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

Section 62, 65(2), 115(2), 351(2) B.N.S., and Section 5(M)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Mohammadpur Khala, DistrictBarabanki.

¶18

While pressing the instant bail revision, the learned counsel for the revisionist stated that the revisionist having no criminal history is in jail since 25.01.2025, despite the fact that he has not committed any crime including the crime as indicated in the F.I.R. dated 24.01.2025 bearing Case Crime No. 51 of 2025, under Section 65(2), 115(2), 351(2) B.N.S., and Section 5(M)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Mohammadpur Khala, District-Barabanki.

¶19

It is further stated that according to the F.I.R., the revisionist at 08:00 P.M. on 12.01.2025 forcefully established the physical relations at an open place with the daughter of the informant aged about 4 years, who according to the medical opinion on the date of alleged incident i.e. 12.01.2025 was aged about 6 years.

¶20

It is further stated that the prosecution story against the revisionist is completely false which could be inferred from the facts borne out from the record. The facts indicated are as under:-

¶21

(i) In a Regular Suit No.932 of 2021, (Kranti Vs. Raja Ram and others), instituted by Smt. Kranti; mother of the revisionist, the Civil Judge (J.D.), F.T.C., Court No.39, Barabanki (in short ‘trial court’) passed an order on 27.07.2022 directing the parties to maintain status-quo.

¶22

(ii) Parants of the revisionist lodge the FIRs against the family members and relatives of the informan at P.S. Mohammadpur

¶23

CRLR No. 539 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

Khala, Barabanki registered as Case Crime No(s). 349 of 2023, 616 of 2023 and 459 of 2023 and being aggrieved by the temporary injunction order passed by the trial court on 27.07.2022 as also criminal cases instituted from the side of the revisionist the parents of the revisionist were forced to compromise which was refused and thereafter to create pressure the F.I.R. in issue was lodged against the revisionist. (iii) The alleged crime can not be committed at an open place.

¶26

(iv) The medical opinion does not support the story of prosecution as no mark of injury was found by the doctor on the body of the prosecutrix-victim, who also refused for internal examination.

¶27

Learned A.G.A on the other hand has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail sought by the revisionist but he could not dispute the above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist.

¶28

Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case including the period of incarceration and the principles settled to grant bail to accused under trial on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial as also the spirit of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 and also the medical opinion of the victim, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

¶29

The impugned judgment and order dated 26.03.2025, passed by Children Court, Court Room No.44 Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No. 016 of 2025 and the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Barabanki arising out of Case Crime No. 51 of 2025, under Section 62, 65(2), 115(2), 351(2) B.N.S., and Section 5(M)/6 of POCSO

¶30

CRLR No. 539 of 2025

¶31

4

¶32

Act, Police Station-Mohammadpur Khala, District-Barabanki are hereby set aside.

¶33

Let Juvenile X Thru. His Mother Y 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.

¶34

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.

¶35

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶36

January 28, 2026

¶37

Arti/-

¶38

Digitally signed by :- ARTI MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Juvenile X , Thru. His Natural Guardian /Mother Y v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile X , Thru. His Natural Guardian /Mother Y v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shobhit @ Monu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Rajendra Yadav @ Rajendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dhanesh vs Sri Vikash Shiromani Executive Engineer Sarju Nahar Shravasti

Shivam Dixit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Gayatri Jaiswal vs Sri Brijesh Kumar Nayab Tehsildar Sarve Tehsil Sadar Distt. Ayodhya

Sanchit Madan vs Mayank Agarwal