Dinesh Kumar .....Revisionist(s) v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another

the Bail Application of the revisionist arising out of Case Crime No.278 of 2024, under Section 109, 352, 118(2) BNS and 3(1) Da, Dha and 3(2)VA of SC/ST Act, P.S. Gauriganj, District Amethi.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the incident is said to have occurred on 25/08/2024 at 19:30 hours; the FIR in the case was lodged after 24 hours on 26/08/2024 at 20.51 hours as Case Crime No.278 of 2024, Police Station Gauriganj, District Amethi. No proper explanation 2 CRLR No. 206 of 2025 has been given in lodging of the FIR.

4. He next submitted that the main witness of the above incident is Injured (Chothil) who gave this statement to the Medico Legal Officer Lucknow during treatment on 26.08.2024 that a day before coming to KGMU Trama Center today, dated 26.08.2024, due to a collision with a truck, I had pain, swelling and wound in my right hand I am getting admitted, I have given a written statement and injured Sandeep Saroj and his father Shriram have signed and thumbprinted it, which has been certified by Medical Officer KGMU Lucknow. In this way, there is a lot of contradiction in the First Information Report and the statement of Chothil and other witnesses, in this way the story of the prosecution is completely doubtful and not reliable.

5. He next submitted that the TSR register of the said date and time when the incident is said to have occurred, no such incident is mentioned that some person was thrown at the railway track and one arm was cut off. Kuldeep is the brother of the victim. Sandeep had given permission to cut off the hands of his brother due to accidental injuries in his own handwriting at King George Medical Hospital on 26/08/2024 at 12:31 p.m., but there is no mention of this fact in the case diary. The District Probation Officer, in its report submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, has stated nothing adverse against the revisionist regarding his social incident report. He next submitted that the co-accused Gaurishankar Kashyap, whose case stands at par with the present appellant, has already been released on bail wide order dated 11/09/2015 passed by coordinate bench of this court in Criminal Appeal No.167 of 2015 preferred against rejection of his bail application by the Special Judge SC/ST Act. The 3 CRLR No. 206 of 2025 appellant is held in jail custody since 29/08/2024. He is not a man of criminal incident. He deserves to be released on bail on the grounds of juvenility and parity with major co-accused, Gaurishankar Kashyap.

6. He lastly submitted that the findings of both the courts below, on which basis the prayer for bail of the revisionist has been denied, are perverse and contrary to law and the material available on record.

7. As per Section 12 of the Juvinile Act three contingencies have been said in which the bail of the juvenile can be rejected:- A. If the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or B. Expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or C. that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

8. As per D.P.O Report nothing like the above condition was found therefore revisionist is entitled for the bail.

9. The D.P.O. in his report has also not mentioned any facts or circumstance which may suggest that there is any likelihood of the juvenile coming in associate of any known criminal or exposing him to any moral, physical or psychological danger.

10. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail application made on behalf of the revisionist, who is a juvenile, on the ground that the offense is of a serious nature. The appellant and co-accused throw him onto the track. His right hand was badly injured on being hit by a moving train, which was ultimately cut off. The injured Sandeep has supported 4 CRLR No. 206 of 2025 the prosecution version in his statement before the investigating officer.

11. Considering the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, the factum of juvenility of the revisionist, who has not been assigned any prior criminal history, and the principle of parity with co-accused, who has already been released on bail, I am of the considered opinion that the learned court below has wrongly rejected the bail application of the juvenile in conflict of law, without considering the law laid down regarding the grant or refusal of bail to a juvenile, as stated in Section 18 of the Act. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

12. Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of both the side and the facts that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence the revision has substance and it is accordingly allowed and the the judgment and order dated 23/12/2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Room No.4, Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2024 as well as order dated 07.12.2024 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur rejecting the Bail Application of the revisionist arising out of Case Crime No.278 of 2024, under Section 109, 352, 118(2) BNS and 3(1) Da, Dha and 3(2)VA of SC/ST Act, P.S. Gauriganj, District Amethi are set aside.

13. Let the revisionist Juvenile X (Minor) Male involved in the aforementioned case crime be released on bail, on his guardian furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- i. The revisionists (juvenile) will not tamper with the evidence. 5 CRLR No. 206 of 2025 ii. The revisionists (juvenile) will not indulge in any criminal activity. iii. The revisionists (juvenile) will not pressurize/intimidate prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial. iv. The revisionists (juvenile) will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless their personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned. December 3, 2025 KR (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

the Bail Application of the revisionist arising out of Case Crime No.278 of 2024, under Section 109, 352, 118(2) BNS and 3(1) Da, Dha and 3(2)VA of SC/ST Act, P.S. Gauriganj, District Amethi.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the incident is said to have occurred on 25/08/2024 at 19:30 hours; the FIR in the case was lodged after 24 hours on 26/08/2024 at 20.51 hours as Case Crime No.278 of 2024, Police Station Gauriganj, District Amethi. No proper explanation 2 CRLR No. 206 of 2025 has been given in lodging of the FIR.

4. He next submitted that the main witness of the above incident is Injured (Chothil) who gave this statement to the Medico Legal Officer Lucknow during treatment on 26.08.2024 that a day before coming to KGMU Trama Center today, dated 26.08.2024, due to a collision with a truck, I had pain, swelling and wound in my right hand I am getting admitted, I have given a written statement and injured Sandeep Saroj and his father Shriram have signed and thumbprinted it, which has been certified by Medical Officer KGMU Lucknow. In this way, there is a lot of contradiction in the First Information Report and the statement of Chothil and other witnesses, in this way the story of the prosecution is completely doubtful and not reliable.

5. He next submitted that the TSR register of the said date and time when the incident is said to have occurred, no such incident is mentioned that some person was thrown at the railway track and one arm was cut off. Kuldeep is the brother of the victim. Sandeep had given permission to cut off the hands of his brother due to accidental injuries in his own handwriting at King George Medical Hospital on 26/08/2024 at 12:31 p.m., but there is no mention of this fact in the case diary. The District Probation Officer, in its report submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, has stated nothing adverse against the revisionist regarding his social incident report. He next submitted that the co-accused Gaurishankar Kashyap, whose case stands at par with the present appellant, has already been released on bail wide order dated 11/09/2015 passed by coordinate bench of this court in Criminal Appeal No.167 of 2015 preferred against rejection of his bail application by the Special Judge SC/ST Act. The 3 CRLR No. 206 of 2025 appellant is held in jail custody since 29/08/2024. He is not a man of criminal incident. He deserves to be released on bail on the grounds of juvenility and parity with major co-accused, Gaurishankar Kashyap.

6. He lastly submitted that the findings of both the courts below, on which basis the prayer for bail of the revisionist has been denied, are perverse and contrary to law and the material available on record.

7. As per Section 12 of the Juvinile Act three contingencies have been said in which the bail of the juvenile can be rejected:- A. If the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or B. Expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or C. that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

8. As per D.P.O Report nothing like the above condition was found therefore revisionist is entitled for the bail.

9. The D.P.O. in his report has also not mentioned any facts or circumstance which may suggest that there is any likelihood of the juvenile coming in associate of any known criminal or exposing him to any moral, physical or psychological danger.

10. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail application made on behalf of the revisionist, who is a juvenile, on the ground that the offense is of a serious nature. The appellant and co-accused throw him onto the track. His right hand was badly injured on being hit by a moving train, which was ultimately cut off. The injured Sandeep has supported 4 CRLR No. 206 of 2025 the prosecution version in his statement before the investigating officer.

11. Considering the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, the factum of juvenility of the revisionist, who has not been assigned any prior criminal history, and the principle of parity with co-accused, who has already been released on bail, I am of the considered opinion that the learned court below has wrongly rejected the bail application of the juvenile in conflict of law, without considering the law laid down regarding the grant or refusal of bail to a juvenile, as stated in Section 18 of the Act. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

12. Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of both the side and the facts that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence the revision has substance and it is accordingly allowed and the the judgment and order dated 23/12/2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Room No.4, Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2024 as well as order dated 07.12.2024 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur rejecting the Bail Application of the revisionist arising out of Case Crime No.278 of 2024, under Section 109, 352, 118(2) BNS and 3(1) Da, Dha and 3(2)VA of SC/ST Act, P.S. Gauriganj, District Amethi are set aside.

13. Let the revisionist Juvenile X (Minor) Male involved in the aforementioned case crime be released on bail, on his guardian furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- i. The revisionists (juvenile) will not tamper with the evidence. 5 CRLR No. 206 of 2025 ii. The revisionists (juvenile) will not indulge in any criminal activity. iii. The revisionists (juvenile) will not pressurize/intimidate prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial. iv. The revisionists (juvenile) will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless their personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned. December 3, 2025 KR (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench