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

2. Heard Shri Vivek Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Shri Angrej Nath Shukla, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2.

3. The captioned criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging therein, the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda in the case of State vs. Mukesh, arising out of Case Crime No. 465 of 2024, registered under Sections 191, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 109/103(1) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act in Police Station - Colonelganj, District - Gonda whereby, the application filed by the revisionist for grant of bail had been rejected. The revisionist through this criminal revision has also challenged the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge P.O.C.S.O. Act, Gonda in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2025 whereby, the appeal filed by the revisionist against the aforesaid order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda had been rejected and the order whereby the application for bail had been rejected, had been affirmed.

4. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that in the criminal 2 CRLR No. 765 of 2025 case, subject matter of this criminal revision, it has been alleged that Brahmadeen S/O Dulari, Munna S/O Brahmadeen, Suresh S/O Brahmadeen, revisionist, Babadeen S/O Ramsudhi, Laxmi W/O Suresh and Sundarpati W/O Brahmadeen, attacked with knife, Bhaala, Gadasa & Gupti on Mansharam and caused him serious injuries which ultimately had resulted into his death. It has further been contended that no specific weapon has been assigned in the hands of the revisionist rather a general role of assault with various weapons had been assigned to all the accused and it had been said that due to injuries caused in the assault, Mansharam had died.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the revisionist had already been declared juvenile and his age on the date of incident had been determined by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda as 15 years 3 months and 5 days. It has further been argued that no specific role has been assigned to the revisionist in the crime in question and only general role had been assigned to all the assailants.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has brought to the notice of this Court that this Court vide order dated 20.12.2024 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13249 of 2025 had granted bail to co-accused, Sundarpati; and vide order dated 31.01.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 993 of 2025 had granted bail to co-accused, Laxmi. It has also been brought to the notice that this Court vide order dated 14.10.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2898 of 2025 had granted bail to one co-accused Brahmadeen, on the ground of age but at the same time, bail application filed by the co-accused, Suresh had been rejected on the ground that he was carrying "Gadasa" in his hands and had caused injury to the deceased and thereafter, on his pointing out, the weapon used in the crime had been recovered.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that general role in respect of the crime had been assigned to all the accused and no specific weapon has been assigned in the hands of the revisionist. Further, recovery of weapons have not been made on pointing out of the revisionist alone, rather it had been made on the joint pointing out of all 3 CRLR No. 765 of 2025 the accused.

8. It has been vehemently argued that the revisionist is a juvenile and his age on the date of incident had been determined as 15 years 3 months 5 days, therefore, even if ultimately, charges are found to be proved against him, he can be granted maximum sentence of imprisonment of three years. It has further been argued that since only general role has been assigned to the revisionist regarding crime in question and he is in judicial custody since 30.10.2024 therefore, it is in the in the interest of justice that he may be enlarged on bail during pendency of the criminal trial.

9. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has opposed the criminal revision and has submitted that the revisionist is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

10. Shri Angrej Nath Shukla, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 has argued that this Court vide order dated 14.10.2025 though had granted bail to co-accused Brahmadeen, on the ground of his age but had rejected the application for bail filed by the co-accused Suresh, on the ground that he has been assigned specific weapon "Gadasa" and on his pointing out, the weapon used in the crime had been recovered. He has further submitted that role of the present revisionist in the crime in question is identical to that of the co-accused Suresh, therefore, the present criminal revision filed by the revisionist is liable to be dismissed.

11. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that in the prosecution story no specific weapon has been assigned to the revisionist rather it had been stated that all the accused were lashed with various weapons, namely knife, Bhaala, Gadasa & Gupti. I further find that in the prosecution story, it has not been specified as to what injury has been caused by the revisionist which resulted into the death of Mansharam. It is also noteworthy that recovery of weapons, used in the crime in question, has not been made only on pointing out of the revisionist alone, rather it has been made on the pointing out of all the accused involved in the crime.

12. So far as the argument raised on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 that the bail application filed by the co-accused Suresh had been rejected by 4 CRLR No. 765 of 2025 this Court vide order dated 14.10.2025, is concerned, this Court finds that the bail application had been rejected by this Court by saying that the recovery of weapon has been made on pointing out of the said co-accused Suresh, whereas the said fact is not borne out from the record, as it had come on record that no specific weapon has been assigned to any accused and further, recovery of all the weapons have been made on pointing out of all the accused jointly.

13. This Court also finds that even the Court vide order dated 14.10.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2898 of 2025 had granted bail to one co-accused Brahmadeen, on the ground of age, whose role is identical to that of the present revisionist. It is note worthy that the revisionist before this Court by virtue of his age had already been declared juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda and if it is assumed that ultimately, charges are found proved, the sentence awarded the present revisionist would be for a maximum period of imprisonment of three years. Once, this Court had granted benefit of age to co-accuased Brahmadeen and had allowed his application for bail vide order dated 14.10.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2898 of 2025, the present revisionist is also entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the criminal trial, particularly keeping in view that the co-accused had already been granted bail by this Court for the same crime.

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

15. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision is hereby allowed.

16. The order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda and the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge P.O.C.S.O. Act, Gonda, are hereby set aside.

17. I hereby, direct the Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda / trial court / 5 CRLR No. 765 of 2025 competent court to enlarge the revisionist on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The revisionist shall cooperate in the early disposal of the case without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (ii) The revisionist shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. November 10, 2025 Lokesh Kumar (Manjive Shukla,J.) LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Heard Shri Vivek Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Shri Angrej Nath Shukla, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2.

3. The captioned criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging therein, the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda in the case of State vs. Mukesh, arising out of Case Crime No. 465 of 2024, registered under Sections 191, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 109/103(1) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act in Police Station - Colonelganj, District - Gonda whereby, the application filed by the revisionist for grant of bail had been rejected. The revisionist through this criminal revision has also challenged the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge P.O.C.S.O. Act, Gonda in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2025 whereby, the appeal filed by the revisionist against the aforesaid order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda had been rejected and the order whereby the application for bail had been rejected, had been affirmed.

4. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that in the criminal 2 CRLR No. 765 of 2025 case, subject matter of this criminal revision, it has been alleged that Brahmadeen S/O Dulari, Munna S/O Brahmadeen, Suresh S/O Brahmadeen, revisionist, Babadeen S/O Ramsudhi, Laxmi W/O Suresh and Sundarpati W/O Brahmadeen, attacked with knife, Bhaala, Gadasa & Gupti on Mansharam and caused him serious injuries which ultimately had resulted into his death. It has further been contended that no specific weapon has been assigned in the hands of the revisionist rather a general role of assault with various weapons had been assigned to all the accused and it had been said that due to injuries caused in the assault, Mansharam had died.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the revisionist had already been declared juvenile and his age on the date of incident had been determined by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda as 15 years 3 months and 5 days. It has further been argued that no specific role has been assigned to the revisionist in the crime in question and only general role had been assigned to all the assailants.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has brought to the notice of this Court that this Court vide order dated 20.12.2024 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13249 of 2025 had granted bail to co-accused, Sundarpati; and vide order dated 31.01.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 993 of 2025 had granted bail to co-accused, Laxmi. It has also been brought to the notice that this Court vide order dated 14.10.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2898 of 2025 had granted bail to one co-accused Brahmadeen, on the ground of age but at the same time, bail application filed by the co-accused, Suresh had been rejected on the ground that he was carrying "Gadasa" in his hands and had caused injury to the deceased and thereafter, on his pointing out, the weapon used in the crime had been recovered.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that general role in respect of the crime had been assigned to all the accused and no specific weapon has been assigned in the hands of the revisionist. Further, recovery of weapons have not been made on pointing out of the revisionist alone, rather it had been made on the joint pointing out of all 3 CRLR No. 765 of 2025 the accused.

8. It has been vehemently argued that the revisionist is a juvenile and his age on the date of incident had been determined as 15 years 3 months 5 days, therefore, even if ultimately, charges are found to be proved against him, he can be granted maximum sentence of imprisonment of three years. It has further been argued that since only general role has been assigned to the revisionist regarding crime in question and he is in judicial custody since 30.10.2024 therefore, it is in the in the interest of justice that he may be enlarged on bail during pendency of the criminal trial.

9. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has opposed the criminal revision and has submitted that the revisionist is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

10. Shri Angrej Nath Shukla, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 has argued that this Court vide order dated 14.10.2025 though had granted bail to co-accused Brahmadeen, on the ground of his age but had rejected the application for bail filed by the co-accused Suresh, on the ground that he has been assigned specific weapon "Gadasa" and on his pointing out, the weapon used in the crime had been recovered. He has further submitted that role of the present revisionist in the crime in question is identical to that of the co-accused Suresh, therefore, the present criminal revision filed by the revisionist is liable to be dismissed.

11. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that in the prosecution story no specific weapon has been assigned to the revisionist rather it had been stated that all the accused were lashed with various weapons, namely knife, Bhaala, Gadasa & Gupti. I further find that in the prosecution story, it has not been specified as to what injury has been caused by the revisionist which resulted into the death of Mansharam. It is also noteworthy that recovery of weapons, used in the crime in question, has not been made only on pointing out of the revisionist alone, rather it has been made on the pointing out of all the accused involved in the crime.

12. So far as the argument raised on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 that the bail application filed by the co-accused Suresh had been rejected by 4 CRLR No. 765 of 2025 this Court vide order dated 14.10.2025, is concerned, this Court finds that the bail application had been rejected by this Court by saying that the recovery of weapon has been made on pointing out of the said co-accused Suresh, whereas the said fact is not borne out from the record, as it had come on record that no specific weapon has been assigned to any accused and further, recovery of all the weapons have been made on pointing out of all the accused jointly.

13. This Court also finds that even the Court vide order dated 14.10.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2898 of 2025 had granted bail to one co-accused Brahmadeen, on the ground of age, whose role is identical to that of the present revisionist. It is note worthy that the revisionist before this Court by virtue of his age had already been declared juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda and if it is assumed that ultimately, charges are found proved, the sentence awarded the present revisionist would be for a maximum period of imprisonment of three years. Once, this Court had granted benefit of age to co-accuased Brahmadeen and had allowed his application for bail vide order dated 14.10.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2898 of 2025, the present revisionist is also entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the criminal trial, particularly keeping in view that the co-accused had already been granted bail by this Court for the same crime.

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

15. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision is hereby allowed.

16. The order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda and the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge P.O.C.S.O. Act, Gonda, are hereby set aside.

17. I hereby, direct the Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda / trial court / 5 CRLR No. 765 of 2025 competent court to enlarge the revisionist on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The revisionist shall cooperate in the early disposal of the case without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (ii) The revisionist shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. November 10, 2025 Lokesh Kumar (Manjive Shukla,J.) LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench