State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another vs Party(s)

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. 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 11.02.2025, passed by the Appellate Court, Lakhimpur Kheri, in Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2024, which was preferred against the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri, arising out of Case Crime No. 299 of 2024, under Sections 64, 74, 352, 351(2) and Sections 3(1)(W)(i), 3(2)(V) and 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Sampurna Nagar, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist stated that the revisionist has been falsely implicated on account of village party bandi. In fact, he has not committed any crime.

4. It is further stated that the revisionist, on the date of alleged incident, i.e., 12.10.2024, was aged about 17 years 9 months and 5 days, and the victim, according to her own admission was aged about 19 years.

5. It is further stated that and as per her statement of victim and also as per the story of the prosecution indicated in the FIR No. 0299 of 2024, at Police Station - Sampurna Nagar, District- Lakhimpur Kheri, revisionist tried to outrage the modesty of the victim and therefore, the FIR was lodged under Sections 74, 352, 351(2) BNS and and Sections 3(1)(W)(i) and 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act and in this view of the matter, if 2 CRLR No. 470 of 2025 the story of the prosecution, initially indicated, is taken on its face value, which in fact is not correct, even in that eventuality the maximum punishment which could be awarded is up to 5 years and in this view of the matter, the revisionist was entitled to the benefit of the judgment passed in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351 : (2022) 10 SCC 51.

6. It is further submitted that the victim levelled allegations to attract offence under Section 74 BNS, akin to Section 376 IPC. However, the allegations in this regard could not be established before the concerned Court as the medical evidence does not support the same, according to which no injury was found (external or internal) by the doctor concerned, who also opined that no opinion could be given regarding the offence of rape.

7. It is further stated that if the story of prosecution is taken on its face value even in that eventuality, taking note of spirit of Section 12, Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015 and also the period of incarceration of i.e. since 16.10.2024 of the revisionist and also the punishment which could be awarded to a juvenile under Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015 read with other provisions including Section 21 of the Act of 2015, the revisionist is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

8. It is further stated that gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the bail. It is not a relevant factor while considering to grant bail to the juvenile. It has been so held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB). It has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions of this court.

9. Taking note of aforesaid aspect of the case, the revisionist is entitled to be enlarged on bail and in case he is enlarged on bail, 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.

10. Learned AGA for the State and Shri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, 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 they have not disputed the above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist.

11. Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case including that the opinion of the doctor as also the period of incarceration 3 CRLR No. 470 of 2025 i.e. about 11 months, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

12. The judgment and order dated 11.02.2025, passed by the Appellate Court, Lakhimpur Kheri, in Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2024, which was preferred against the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri, arising out of Case Crime No. 299 of 2024, under Sections 64, 74, 352, 351(2) and Sections 3(1)(W)(i), 3(2)(V) and 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Sampurna Nagar, District- Lakhimpur Kheri, are hereby set aside. , Juvenile Thru. His Father And Natural 13. Let Master X Guardian of aforesaid Case Crime Number be enlarged on bail, in the above mentioned case on executing a personal bond by his 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 natural guardian 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.

14. 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. September 19, 2025 Mohit Singh/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. 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 11.02.2025, passed by the Appellate Court, Lakhimpur Kheri, in Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2024, which was preferred against the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri, arising out of Case Crime No. 299 of 2024, under Sections 64, 74, 352, 351(2) and Sections 3(1)(W)(i), 3(2)(V) and 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Sampurna Nagar, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist stated that the revisionist has been falsely implicated on account of village party bandi. In fact, he has not committed any crime.

4. It is further stated that the revisionist, on the date of alleged incident, i.e., 12.10.2024, was aged about 17 years 9 months and 5 days, and the victim, according to her own admission was aged about 19 years.

5. It is further stated that and as per her statement of victim and also as per the story of the prosecution indicated in the FIR No. 0299 of 2024, at Police Station - Sampurna Nagar, District- Lakhimpur Kheri, revisionist tried to outrage the modesty of the victim and therefore, the FIR was lodged under Sections 74, 352, 351(2) BNS and and Sections 3(1)(W)(i) and 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act and in this view of the matter, if 2 CRLR No. 470 of 2025 the story of the prosecution, initially indicated, is taken on its face value, which in fact is not correct, even in that eventuality the maximum punishment which could be awarded is up to 5 years and in this view of the matter, the revisionist was entitled to the benefit of the judgment passed in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351 : (2022) 10 SCC 51.

6. It is further submitted that the victim levelled allegations to attract offence under Section 74 BNS, akin to Section 376 IPC. However, the allegations in this regard could not be established before the concerned Court as the medical evidence does not support the same, according to which no injury was found (external or internal) by the doctor concerned, who also opined that no opinion could be given regarding the offence of rape.

7. It is further stated that if the story of prosecution is taken on its face value even in that eventuality, taking note of spirit of Section 12, Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015 and also the period of incarceration of i.e. since 16.10.2024 of the revisionist and also the punishment which could be awarded to a juvenile under Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015 read with other provisions including Section 21 of the Act of 2015, the revisionist is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

8. It is further stated that gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the bail. It is not a relevant factor while considering to grant bail to the juvenile. It has been so held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB). It has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions of this court.

9. Taking note of aforesaid aspect of the case, the revisionist is entitled to be enlarged on bail and in case he is enlarged on bail, 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.

10. Learned AGA for the State and Shri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, 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 they have not disputed the above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist.

11. Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case including that the opinion of the doctor as also the period of incarceration 3 CRLR No. 470 of 2025 i.e. about 11 months, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

12. The judgment and order dated 11.02.2025, passed by the Appellate Court, Lakhimpur Kheri, in Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2024, which was preferred against the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri, arising out of Case Crime No. 299 of 2024, under Sections 64, 74, 352, 351(2) and Sections 3(1)(W)(i), 3(2)(V) and 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Sampurna Nagar, District- Lakhimpur Kheri, are hereby set aside. , Juvenile Thru. His Father And Natural 13. Let Master X Guardian of aforesaid Case Crime Number be enlarged on bail, in the above mentioned case on executing a personal bond by his 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 natural guardian 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.

14. 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. September 19, 2025 Mohit Singh/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench