Juvenile Delinquent v Thru. His Father X vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 545 of 2024

¶3

Juvenile Delinquent V Thru. His Father X

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shanker Lal Pandey, Mantosh Kumar, Shravan Kumar Upadhyay, Sujeeta Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sumit Kumar Srivastava

¶9

Court No. - 13

¶10

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶11

Case called out. Learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State are present. Although name of Shri Sumit Kumar Srivastava, Advocate is printed in the cause list on behalf of the opposite party No.2 but when the case is taken up, no one appeared to oppose the revision. In the above circumstances after taking note of order dated 26.09.2025 wherein the Court observed that, "it is made clear that on the next dates fixed in this case, the case would not be adjourned on account of non-appearance of private opposite party No.2 and it would be heard and decided on merits" , this court proceeded to decide the instant bail revision finally.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶13

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 02.05.2024, passed by Juvenile Court/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.101 of 2023, which was preferred against the order dated 08.01.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.63/2023 (Juvenile Delinquent Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.313/2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Section 3 (2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Patti, District - Pratapgarh.

¶14

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the case, inasmuch as, the revisionist has not committed any offence as alleged and the prosecution story is false, concocted and misconceived.

¶15

It is further submitted that revisionist and the prosecutrix/victim both were of the adolescent age when the F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party No.2 against the revisionist as also other family members of the revisionist making allegations therein

¶16

CRLR No. 545 of 2024

¶17

2

¶18

to attract Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Section 3 (2) 5 of SC/ST Act (as amended in the year 2015).

¶19

It is next submitted that according to the F.I.R., the prosecutrix/victim, daughter of the informant, aged about 14 years, was enticed away by the revisionist and on this issue the informant inquired from the family members of the revisionist who scolded, hurled abuses as also threatened for life of the informant, his family members including the prosecutrix/victim.

¶20

It is also submitted that the revisionist, minor /juvenile having no criminal history, which has not been refuted by the side opposite, is in custody since 08.09.2023, and thus, taking into consideration the period of incarceration alone which comes to around 28 months as well as various pronouncements in this regard, including 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 an accused on bail 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.

¶21

Learned counsel for the revisionist next submitted that a perusal of the statement of the victim recorded in terms of Section(s) 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. would indicate that the revisionist and the victim, who were of adolescent age, were in affair and therefore, the victim on her own volition accompanied the revisionist to Rajasthan where both solemnized marriage and also established physical relation. Thus, it can be said to be a case of consent.

¶22

Learned counsel also submitted that the victim/prosecutrix on her own volition accompanied the revisionist to Rajasthan is not in issue but the fact/allegation related to solemnization of marriage and thereafter establishing physical relations are not correct and same can be inferred from the fact that the proseutrix/victim refused for medical examination which fact is apparent from the Annexure No.6, which is the photocopy of the part of the charge sheet.

¶23

Learned counsel also submits that according to the medical opinion, the prosecutrix/victim at the time of lodging of F.I.R. was aged about 15 years.

¶24

Learned counsel for the revisionist has next submitted that taking note of the

¶25

CRLR No. 545 of 2024

¶26

3

¶27

above facts including the age of the revisionist on the date of incident i.e. about 17 years, as also the period of incarceration, i.e. 02 years 04 months and the maximum sentence/punishment which can be awarded to the revisionist, as also the fact that the revisionist has no criminal history, the revisionist/juvenile is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶28

In these circumstances, the revisionist may be enlarged on bail and 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.

¶29

Learned A.G.A. 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 he has not disputed the above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist.

¶30

Thus, taking note of the above facts including the age of the revisionist on the date of incident, the period of incarceration and the maximum sentence/punishment which can be awarded to the revisionist, as also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and also the statement(s) of victim, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the revision is allowed .

¶31

The impugned judgment and judgment and order dated 02.05.2024, passed by Juvenile Court/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.101 of 2023, which was preferred against the order dated 08.01.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.63/2023 (Juvenile Delinquent Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.313/2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Section 3 (2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Patti, District - Pratapgarh are set aside.

¶32

Let Juvenile Delinquent "V" involved in of the 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 his counsel, failing which, the order of bail granted to Juvenile may be cancelled.

¶33

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.

¶34

January 27, 2026 ML/-

¶35

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶36

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Juvenile Delinquent v. Thru. His Father X v State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile Delinquent v. Thru. His Father X v State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

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

Ram Sahay vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. Another

Suvesh Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Roma Verma and 86 Others vs Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Jila Basic Siksha Adhikari Sitapur

Bhaskar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and Another

Rohit Saroj vs Sri Surendra Nath Tiwari, Superintendent of Police, Karmik Police, Lko.