Juvenile X Thru. His Father Case Crime No. 163 /2025 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. - 968 of 2025

¶3

Juvenile X Thru. His Father Case Crime No. 163 /2025

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rakshit Raj Singh, Ayush Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 13

¶7

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶9

The instant Criminal Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the act") read with Section 438/442 of the BNSS (Erstwhile Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C.) against the Judgment and Order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the Learned Children's Court, Court Room No. 44, Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No. 32/2025 arising out of F.I.R. No. 163/2025 lodged under Section 103 of BNS and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act at Police Station Tikait Nagar, District - Barabanki and also against the judgment and order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in Application No. 24/2025 which was dismissed on 18.06.2025 and was affirmed by the Appellate Court vide its judgment and order dated 22.07.2025.

¶10

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

¶11

It is further stated that co-accused namely Raj Vardhan Singh alias Rajbardhan Singh alias Shivam Singh and Aman Singh has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 11.08.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1907 of 2025, as such the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. The relevant portion of the order dated 11.08.2025 reads as under:-

¶12

"3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No.1446 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.163 of 2025, under Section- 103 B.N.S. and Section- 3(2(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Tikait Nagar, District- Barabanki.

¶13

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is to the effect that appellants have been falsely implicated in the case by the prosecution/informant

¶14

CRLR No. 968 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

and the appellants are innocent and have not committed the crime as alleged in the FIR in relation to which they are in jail, having no criminal history, since 26.04.2025.

¶17

5. It is further submitted that according to the FIR the deceased indicated that name of the appellants. However, a perusal of the statement of the informant, namely, Smt. Rampata Rawat, it would indicate that the deceased told the informant that four persons assaulted him, however, the deceased had not indicated the name of the appellants.

¶18

6. It is further submitted that in the same terms, the son of the deceased - Raju made his statement before the Investigating Officer, which could be inferred from Annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit of the State.

¶19

7. Further submission is that the statements of both these persons, namely, Smt. Rampata Rawat/informant and Raju, wife and son respectively of the deceased, would indicate that in fact both of them were not aware about the involvement of the appellants and in fact it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no link to connect the appellants with the present crime.

¶20

8. It is also stated that on a question put to the son of deceased- Raju which is to the effect that how he came to know about the involvement of the appellants in the present crime, he pointed out that the deceased indicated the name of the appellants and if this statement would read along with statement of independent witness, who is alleged to be eye-witness, namely, Rajesh Rawat, it would appear that the witnesses, namely, Smt. Rampata Rawat and Raju are not truthful witness nor Ramesh Rawat is a truthful witness as according to his statement, he is an eye-witness, however, in the FIR it has not been mentioned that Rajesh Rawat informed the informant regarding the involvement of the appellants in the crime and till 27.04.2025 Rajesh Rawat failed to indicate the names of the appellants to the prosecution. In these circumstances, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

¶21

9. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant.

¶22

10. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record.

¶23

11. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A., F.I.R., impugned order, including the fact as indicated that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no link to connect the appellants with the present crime and the statements of the eye-witnesses, namely, Smt. Rampata Rawat and Raju as also independent witness- Rajesh Rawat are not reliable, as also the fact that the appellants are in jail since 26.04.2025 and chances of conviction of the appellants and possibilities of conclusion of trial in near future, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

¶24

12. Order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No.1446 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.163 of 2025, under Section- 103 B.N.S. and Section- 3(2(v) of SC/ST Act, Police StationTikait Nagar, District- Barabanki is hereby set aside.

¶25

13. Let the appellants- Raj Vardhan Singh alias Rajbardhan Singh alias Shivam Singh and Aman Sinigh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand

¶26

CRLR No. 968 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶29

(i) The appellants shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶30

(ii) The appellants shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶31

(iii) The appellants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶32

(iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence.

¶33

(v) The appellants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶34

(vi) The appellants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶35

(vii) The appellants shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶36

(viii) The appellants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. "

¶37

It is submitted that considering aforesaid, the revisionist, who is in jail since 29.04.2025, is entitled to be released on bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial and would also not influence the prosecution witnesses.

¶38

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the revisionist, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the revisionist's counsel including that co-accused, named above, has already been released on bail by this Court.

¶39

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the petition, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and also taking note of the fact that co-accused, named above, have already been released on bail by this Court and without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the revision has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶40

The impugned judgment and order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the learned Children's Court, Court Room No.44, Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No.32/2025 arising out of FIR No.163/2025 lodged under Section 103 BNS and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, PS- Tikait Nagar, District- Barabanki and the judgment and order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in Application No.24/2025 are hereby set aside.

¶41

Let Juvenile X Thru. His Father Case Crime No. 163 /2025 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

¶42

CRLR No. 968 of 2025

¶43

4

¶44

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.

¶45

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.

¶46

January 20, 2026 DiVYa

¶47

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶48

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Juvenile X Thru. His Father Case Crime No. 163 /2025 v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile X Thru. His Father Case Crime No. 163 /2025 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

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.