✦ High Court of India

X Minor Juvenile Delinquent v. Sate of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated

Case Details High Court of India
Court
High Court of India
Bench
SpecialSessions
Length
1,474 words

3. 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 12.11.2024, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2024 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 03.09.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.56 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.208 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 103(1), 238, 3(5) of B.N.S., Police Station- Patti, District- Pratapgarh.

4. While pressing the present revision, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that co-accused 'X' has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.08.2025, passed in Criminal Revision No.1505 of 2024. Relevant portion of order dated 14.08.2025, passed in Criminal Revision No.1505 of 2024 is extracted hereinunder. "Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. 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 12.11.2024, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2024 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 03.09.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.55 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.208 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 103(1), 238, 3(5) of B.N.S., Police Station- Patti, District- Pratapgarh.

4. It is stated that an FIR registered as FIR/Case Crime No.208 of 2024 at P.S.- Patti, District- Pratapgarh, under Section 137(2) of B.N.S. was lodged on 02.07.2024 by opposite party no.2. This FIR indicates that the same was lodged against unknown persons. It further indicates that the minor son of opposite party no.2 was missing on 02.07.2024 and, therefore, a missing report was lodged.

5. Further submission is that during investigation the statement of opposite party no.2 was recorded and in the said statement the name of the revisionist was surfaced and after recording the statement of opposite party no.2, who is also co-accused, the prosecution apprehended the revisionist and opposite party no.2 as also one Roshan Lal and all the accused are in jail. 6. It is further submitted that there is no direct evidence available with the prosecution to connect the revisionist with the crime except the evidence of co-accused which is inadmissible in evidence.

7. It is further 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.

8. It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, is languishing in jail since 08.07.2024 and he is having no criminal history, which has not been opposed by the side opposite, and as per Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015, the maximum punishment which could be awarded to a juvenile is three years and as such, taking note of the period of incarceration, which is about 13 months, the juvenile is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In these circumstances, the revisionist is also entitled to 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.

9. 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.

10. Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case including the fact as stated that the revisionist was not named in the FIR and there is no direct evidence available with the prosecution to connect the revisionist with the crime except the evidence of co-accused one of whom is informant herself as also taking note of the period of incarceration of the revisionist, which is about 13 months, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

11. The impugned judgment and order dated 12.11.2024, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2024 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 03.09.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.55 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.208 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 103(1), 238, 3(5) of B.N.S., Police Station- Patti, District- Pratapgarh are set aside."

5. 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.

6. It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, is languishing in jail/protection home since 08.07.2024, which has not been opposed by the side opposite, and as per Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015, the maximum punishment which could be awarded to a juvenile is three years and as such, taking note of the period of incarceration, the juvenile is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In these circumstances, the revisionist is also entitled to 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.

7. 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.

8. Thus, having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.08.2025, passed in Criminal Revision No.1505 of 2024, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

9. The impugned judgment and order dated 12.11.2024, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2024 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 03.09.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.56 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.208 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 103(1), 238, 3(5) of B.N.S., Police Station- Patti, District- Pratapgarh are set aside.

10. 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 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.

11. 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. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Anand/-

3. 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 12.11.2024, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2024 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 03.09.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.56 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.208 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 103(1), 238, 3(5) of B.N.S., Police Station- Patti, District- Pratapgarh.

4. While pressing the present revision, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that co-accused 'X' has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.08.2025, passed in Criminal Revision No.1505 of 2024. Relevant portion of order dated 14.08.2025, passed in Criminal Revision No.1505 of 2024 is extracted hereinunder. "Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. 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 12.11.2024, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2024 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 03.09.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.55 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.208 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 103(1), 238, 3(5) of B.N.S., Police Station- Patti, District- Pratapgarh.

4. It is stated that an FIR registered as FIR/Case Crime No.208 of 2024 at P.S.- Patti, District- Pratapgarh, under Section 137(2) of B.N.S. was lodged on 02.07.2024 by opposite party no.2. This FIR indicates that the same was lodged against unknown persons. It further indicates that the minor son of opposite party no.2 was missing on 02.07.2024 and, therefore, a missing report was lodged.

5. Further submission is that during investigation the statement of opposite party no.2 was recorded and in the said statement the name of the revisionist was surfaced and after recording the statement of opposite party no.2, who is also co-accused, the prosecution apprehended the revisionist and opposite party no.2 as also one Roshan Lal and all the accused are in jail. 6. It is further submitted that there is no direct evidence available with the prosecution to connect the revisionist with the crime except the evidence of co-accused which is inadmissible in evidence.

7. It is further 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.

8. It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, is languishing in jail since 08.07.2024 and he is having no criminal history, which has not been opposed by the side opposite, and as per Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015, the maximum punishment which could be awarded to a juvenile is three years and as such, taking note of the period of incarceration, which is about 13 months, the juvenile is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In these circumstances, the revisionist is also entitled to 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.

9. 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.

10. Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case including the fact as stated that the revisionist was not named in the FIR and there is no direct evidence available with the prosecution to connect the revisionist with the crime except the evidence of co-accused one of whom is informant herself as also taking note of the period of incarceration of the revisionist, which is about 13 months, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

11. The impugned judgment and order dated 12.11.2024, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act/Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2024 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 03.09.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.55 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.208 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 103(1), 238, 3(5) of B.N.S., Police Station- Patti, District- Pratapgarh are set aside."

5. 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.

6. It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, is languishing in jail/protection home since 08.07.2024, which has not been opposed by the side opposite, and as per Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015, the maximum punishment which could be awarded to a juvenile is three years and as such, taking note of the period of incarceration, the juvenile is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In these circumstances, the revisionist is also entitled to 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.

7. 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.

8. Thus, having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.08.2025, passed in Criminal Revision No.1505 of 2024, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

9. The impugned judgment and order dated 12.11.2024, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2024 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 03.09.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.56 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.208 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 103(1), 238, 3(5) of B.N.S., Police Station- Patti, District- Pratapgarh are set aside.

10. 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 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.

11. 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. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Anand/-

Find similar cases Start drafting free
This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments