High Court · 2025

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Badrul Hasan, learned A.G.A.-I 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 03.05.2024, passed by the Special Judge, Children Court, Lakhimpur Kheri in Computerized Registration Case/Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2024, which was preferred against the order dated 29.03.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri arising out of FIR /Case Crime No.0114/2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station - Paduva, District - Lakhimpur Kheri.

4. 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. It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, is languishing in jail since 01.10.2023 and he is having no criminal history, which has not been opposed by the learned A.G.A. Thus, the period of incarceration would come to around 23 months and the punishment which could be awarded to a juvenile in terms of Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015 is three years and as such, taking note of the period of incarceration, the juvenile is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

5. The further submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the statement of the victim/prosecutrix recorded by the Investigating Officer (in short "I.O") under Section 161 Cr.P.C. would indicate that the case of the prosecution is a false case. Elaborating, it is stated that according to the F.I.R. the revisionist, a juvenile/minor, enticed away the minor daughter of the informant with the help of the sister-in-law of the informant (Mausi of the victim) and a perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Annexure No.2 to the present revision) indicates that on being annoyed with her parents the victim left her parental home and went to the house of the co-accused, who is the Mausi of the victim, at Himanchal and after coming to know about lodging of the F.I.R. against the revisionist as also the co-accused (Mausi of the victim), she came to her native place and this statement further indicates that no offence was committed by any person with the victim as she stated that "Mere Saath Kisi Ne Galat Bartav Nahi Kiya".

6. It is also submitted that in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has leveled allegation against the revisionist to attract the Section 376 IPC and based upon the same charge sheet has been filed under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, the provisions of which ought not to have been implicated for the reason that both, the victim and the accused-revisionist are of adolescent age.

7. It is further submitted that it appears that the allegations to attract the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. have been leveled by the victim under the pressure of the her family members and infact no such offence was committed by the revisionist which can be inferred from the medico legal report which is annexed as Annexure No.3 to the present revision from where it is clear that the victim denied her medical examination as such to corroborate the prosecution story there is no medical evidence available with the prosecution. In these circumstances, the revisionist is 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.

8. 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.

9. Thus, having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, statement(s) of the victim and the fact that the victim denied for medical examination, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

10. The impugned judgment and order dated 03.05.2024, passed by the Special Judge, Children Court, Lakhimpur Kheri in Computerized Registration Case/Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2024, which was preferred against the order dated 29.03.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri arising out of FIR /Case Crime No.0114/2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station - Paduva, District - Lakhimpur Kheri are set aside.

11. Let 'X' (Juvenile/Minor), S/o 'Y' through natural guardian involved in 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.

12. 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 :- 12.8.2025 ML/- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Badrul Hasan, learned A.G.A.-I 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 03.05.2024, passed by the Special Judge, Children Court, Lakhimpur Kheri in Computerized Registration Case/Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2024, which was preferred against the order dated 29.03.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri arising out of FIR /Case Crime No.0114/2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station - Paduva, District - Lakhimpur Kheri.

4. 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. It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, is languishing in jail since 01.10.2023 and he is having no criminal history, which has not been opposed by the learned A.G.A. Thus, the period of incarceration would come to around 23 months and the punishment which could be awarded to a juvenile in terms of Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015 is three years and as such, taking note of the period of incarceration, the juvenile is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

5. The further submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the statement of the victim/prosecutrix recorded by the Investigating Officer (in short "I.O") under Section 161 Cr.P.C. would indicate that the case of the prosecution is a false case. Elaborating, it is stated that according to the F.I.R. the revisionist, a juvenile/minor, enticed away the minor daughter of the informant with the help of the sister-in-law of the informant (Mausi of the victim) and a perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Annexure No.2 to the present revision) indicates that on being annoyed with her parents the victim left her parental home and went to the house of the co-accused, who is the Mausi of the victim, at Himanchal and after coming to know about lodging of the F.I.R. against the revisionist as also the co-accused (Mausi of the victim), she came to her native place and this statement further indicates that no offence was committed by any person with the victim as she stated that "Mere Saath Kisi Ne Galat Bartav Nahi Kiya".

6. It is also submitted that in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has leveled allegation against the revisionist to attract the Section 376 IPC and based upon the same charge sheet has been filed under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, the provisions of which ought not to have been implicated for the reason that both, the victim and the accused-revisionist are of adolescent age.

7. It is further submitted that it appears that the allegations to attract the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. have been leveled by the victim under the pressure of the her family members and infact no such offence was committed by the revisionist which can be inferred from the medico legal report which is annexed as Annexure No.3 to the present revision from where it is clear that the victim denied her medical examination as such to corroborate the prosecution story there is no medical evidence available with the prosecution. In these circumstances, the revisionist is 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.

8. 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.

9. Thus, having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, statement(s) of the victim and the fact that the victim denied for medical examination, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

10. The impugned judgment and order dated 03.05.2024, passed by the Special Judge, Children Court, Lakhimpur Kheri in Computerized Registration Case/Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2024, which was preferred against the order dated 29.03.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri arising out of FIR /Case Crime No.0114/2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station - Paduva, District - Lakhimpur Kheri are set aside.

11. Let 'X' (Juvenile/Minor), S/o 'Y' through natural guardian involved in 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.

12. 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 :- 12.8.2025 ML/- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench