Juvenile Delinquent X (Minor ) Thru. His Father .....Revisionist(s) v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A., Arun Sinha, Siddhartha Sinha Court No. - 27 HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Shri Arun Sinha, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Ramchandra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

2. The captioned criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in Misc. Case No.69 of 2025, State Vs. Mohd. Aayaan, arising out of Case Crime No./First Information No.41 of 2025, registered under Section 105 of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station- Hasanganj, District-Lucknow, whereby the application filed by the revisionist for grant of bail had been rejected.

3. The revisionist through this criminal revision has also challenged the order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act), Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.131 of 2025, whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist had been dismissed and the order dated 21.04.2025, passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow, had been affirmed.

4. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow, vide its order dated 11.04.2025, had already determined the age of the revisionist as 15 years 7 months and 5 days and had declared him juvenile. It has further been contended that an accident took place when the revisionist was 2 CRLR No. 711 of 2025 driving motorcar which resulted in the death of two persons but the police had registered the case against the revisionist for the offence punishable under Section 105 of the B.N.S., 2023.

5. It has also been submitted on behalf of the revisionist that there is no evidence available in the case diary of the crime in question that the revisionist, with the intention to kill someone, had caused motor accident resulting in death of two persons therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the revisionist can be charged for offence punishable under Section 105 of the B.N.S., 2023.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revisionist has argued that once the age of the revisionist had been determined as 15 years 7 months and 5 days and he had been declared to be juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow, in view of the provisions contained in Section 12(i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

7. It has also been argued that the District Probation Officer, Lucknow had submitted report before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow wherein it had been mentioned that the revisionist had already appeared in the examination of Class-10th and he was preparing for the entrance test of the Aligarh Muslim University. In the report, it had further been stated that neighbours of the revisionist has not given any adverse information in respect of the revisionist.

8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revisionist has argued that once positive report had been submitted by the District Probation Officer, Lucknow and the revisionist had already been declared to be juvenile, there was no occasion for the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow to reject the application for bail filed by the revisionist, therefore, order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in Misc. Case No.69 of 2025 is unsustainable in the eyes of law. It has also been submitted that even the appellate court has not considered facts and circumstances of the case in correct perspective and had rejected the appeal filed by the revisionist. the entire

9. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has opposed this criminal revision and has submitted that the revisionist without having valid driving license was rashly driving the motorcar and had caused death of two persons, therefore, he is not 3 CRLR No. 711 of 2025 entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of trial. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State though has opposed this criminal revision but could not deny that the revisionist herein, had already been declared juvenile, as on the date of accident his age had been ascertained as 15 years 7 months and 5 days.

10. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the age of the revisionist on the date of accident had been ascertained as 15 years 7 months and 5 days and he had already been declared juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow.

11. The District Probation Officer, Lucknow had submitted report before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow, wherein it had been stated that the revisionist is a student and his neighbours have not given any adverse information about his conduct. For ready reference the report submitted by the District Probation Officer, Lucknow is extracted as under: "पिरवी्षा अिधकारी / बाल-कल्याण अिधकारी / सामािजक कायर्कतार् ्षारा पुनवार्स के संबंध में िसफािरश- िकशोर वतर्मान समय में राजकीय सम््ऺे्षण गृह (िकशोर) लखनऊ में आवािसत है। िकशोर की माता का देहान्त हो चुका है। िकशोर के िपता चमड़े का ्िापार करते हैं। िकशोर क्षा 10 की परी्षा ़्ेस कान्वेन्ट कालेज मुतर्जा हुसैन रोड, चौक लखनऊ से िकया है। िकशोर वतर्मान में अलीगढ़ मुिस्लम िव्षिव्यालय में ्ऺवेश परी्षा की तैयारी कर रहा है। िकशोर पढ़ने वाला छा्ऴ है ऐसे में िकशोर की िश्षा को जारी रखना उसके भिवष्य के िलए सहायक होगा। िकशोर के संबंध में पास-पड़ोस से सामान्य ्ऺिति्वया ्ऺाप्त हुई। िकशोर के पिरजन को सुझाव िदया गया िक वे िकशोर को अपने िनयं्ऴण में रखेंगे तथा गलत संगित से दूर रखने का ्ऺयास करेंगे। िकशोर की सामािजक अन्वेषण आख्या माननीय िकशोर न्याय बोडर् की सेवा में सादर ्ऺेिषत है।"

12. This Court finds that there is no material available on record, on the basis of which, it can be inferred that the revisionist at the time of accident was having intention to kill any person in the motor accident and further there is no evidence that the revisionist at the time of accident, was driving motor car rashly and negligently.

13. Even otherwise, this Court finds that since the revisionist had already been declared juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow by ascertaining his age as 15 years 7 months and 5 days and there is no adverse report by the District Probation Officer, Lucknow in respect of his overall conduct and impression in the society, there is no reason to deny bail to the revisionist, pending trial of the case. 4 CRLR No. 711 of 2025

14. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the instant criminal revision filed by the revisionist is liable to be allowed and the revisionist is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

15. Accordingly, the criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in Misc. Case No.69 of 2025 and the order dated 28.05..2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act), Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.131 of 2025, are hereby set aside.

16. Learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow/competent court is hereby directed to enlarge the revisionist on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing two sureties and a personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (i.) The revisionist shall cooperate in early disposal of the case without seeking unnecessary adjournments. (ii.) The revisionist shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

17. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

18. It is made clear that all the observations and findings recorded by this Court in this order are not final and therefore, they shall not adversely affect the trial to be conducted against the revisionist. November 14, 2025 akhilesh/- (Manjive Shukla,J.) AKHILESHWAR KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A., Arun Sinha, Siddhartha Sinha Court No. - 27 HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Shri Arun Sinha, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Ramchandra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

2. The captioned criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in Misc. Case No.69 of 2025, State Vs. Mohd. Aayaan, arising out of Case Crime No./First Information No.41 of 2025, registered under Section 105 of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station- Hasanganj, District-Lucknow, whereby the application filed by the revisionist for grant of bail had been rejected.

3. The revisionist through this criminal revision has also challenged the order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act), Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.131 of 2025, whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist had been dismissed and the order dated 21.04.2025, passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow, had been affirmed.

4. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow, vide its order dated 11.04.2025, had already determined the age of the revisionist as 15 years 7 months and 5 days and had declared him juvenile. It has further been contended that an accident took place when the revisionist was 2 CRLR No. 711 of 2025 driving motorcar which resulted in the death of two persons but the police had registered the case against the revisionist for the offence punishable under Section 105 of the B.N.S., 2023.

5. It has also been submitted on behalf of the revisionist that there is no evidence available in the case diary of the crime in question that the revisionist, with the intention to kill someone, had caused motor accident resulting in death of two persons therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the revisionist can be charged for offence punishable under Section 105 of the B.N.S., 2023.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revisionist has argued that once the age of the revisionist had been determined as 15 years 7 months and 5 days and he had been declared to be juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow, in view of the provisions contained in Section 12(i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

7. It has also been argued that the District Probation Officer, Lucknow had submitted report before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow wherein it had been mentioned that the revisionist had already appeared in the examination of Class-10th and he was preparing for the entrance test of the Aligarh Muslim University. In the report, it had further been stated that neighbours of the revisionist has not given any adverse information in respect of the revisionist.

8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revisionist has argued that once positive report had been submitted by the District Probation Officer, Lucknow and the revisionist had already been declared to be juvenile, there was no occasion for the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow to reject the application for bail filed by the revisionist, therefore, order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in Misc. Case No.69 of 2025 is unsustainable in the eyes of law. It has also been submitted that even the appellate court has not considered facts and circumstances of the case in correct perspective and had rejected the appeal filed by the revisionist. the entire

9. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has opposed this criminal revision and has submitted that the revisionist without having valid driving license was rashly driving the motorcar and had caused death of two persons, therefore, he is not 3 CRLR No. 711 of 2025 entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of trial. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State though has opposed this criminal revision but could not deny that the revisionist herein, had already been declared juvenile, as on the date of accident his age had been ascertained as 15 years 7 months and 5 days.

10. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the age of the revisionist on the date of accident had been ascertained as 15 years 7 months and 5 days and he had already been declared juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow.

11. The District Probation Officer, Lucknow had submitted report before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow, wherein it had been stated that the revisionist is a student and his neighbours have not given any adverse information about his conduct. For ready reference the report submitted by the District Probation Officer, Lucknow is extracted as under: "पिरवी्षा अिधकारी / बाल-कल्याण अिधकारी / सामािजक कायर्कतार् ्षारा पुनवार्स के संबंध में िसफािरश- िकशोर वतर्मान समय में राजकीय सम््ऺे्षण गृह (िकशोर) लखनऊ में आवािसत है। िकशोर की माता का देहान्त हो चुका है। िकशोर के िपता चमड़े का ्िापार करते हैं। िकशोर क्षा 10 की परी्षा ़्ेस कान्वेन्ट कालेज मुतर्जा हुसैन रोड, चौक लखनऊ से िकया है। िकशोर वतर्मान में अलीगढ़ मुिस्लम िव्षिव्यालय में ्ऺवेश परी्षा की तैयारी कर रहा है। िकशोर पढ़ने वाला छा्ऴ है ऐसे में िकशोर की िश्षा को जारी रखना उसके भिवष्य के िलए सहायक होगा। िकशोर के संबंध में पास-पड़ोस से सामान्य ्ऺिति्वया ्ऺाप्त हुई। िकशोर के पिरजन को सुझाव िदया गया िक वे िकशोर को अपने िनयं्ऴण में रखेंगे तथा गलत संगित से दूर रखने का ्ऺयास करेंगे। िकशोर की सामािजक अन्वेषण आख्या माननीय िकशोर न्याय बोडर् की सेवा में सादर ्ऺेिषत है।"

12. This Court finds that there is no material available on record, on the basis of which, it can be inferred that the revisionist at the time of accident was having intention to kill any person in the motor accident and further there is no evidence that the revisionist at the time of accident, was driving motor car rashly and negligently.

13. Even otherwise, this Court finds that since the revisionist had already been declared juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow by ascertaining his age as 15 years 7 months and 5 days and there is no adverse report by the District Probation Officer, Lucknow in respect of his overall conduct and impression in the society, there is no reason to deny bail to the revisionist, pending trial of the case. 4 CRLR No. 711 of 2025

14. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the instant criminal revision filed by the revisionist is liable to be allowed and the revisionist is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

15. Accordingly, the criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in Misc. Case No.69 of 2025 and the order dated 28.05..2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act), Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.131 of 2025, are hereby set aside.

16. Learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow/competent court is hereby directed to enlarge the revisionist on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing two sureties and a personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (i.) The revisionist shall cooperate in early disposal of the case without seeking unnecessary adjournments. (ii.) The revisionist shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

17. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

18. It is made clear that all the observations and findings recorded by this Court in this order are not final and therefore, they shall not adversely affect the trial to be conducted against the revisionist. November 14, 2025 akhilesh/- (Manjive Shukla,J.) AKHILESHWAR KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench