Child Abuser (Xxx) Thru. His Mother (Xxx) v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And

1. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the private opposite party No. 2/complainant and opposite party No. 5/victim despite service of notice, as appears from Annexure No. 2 to the affidavit of service of State dated 24.09.2025. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In these circumstances and also this Court taking note of dated 24.09.2025, which says "It is made clear that on the next date of listing, the case would not be adjourned for absence of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 5 and appropriate orders would be passed in the case in first call", the Court proceeded to hear the instant bail appeal on merits. the order of

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. as well as 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 13.08.2024, passed by the Special Judge, Juvenile Court, Raibareli in Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2024 and the order dated 16.07.2024, passed by the Principle Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Raibareli arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.199/2024, under Sections- 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Mill Area, District- Raibareli.

4. It is stated that as per the case of the prosecution as indicated in FIR/Case Crime No.0199/2024 lodged on 19.04.2024 at Police Station- Mill Area, District- Raibareli, in relation to which the revisionist is in incarceration since 15.05.2024, the revisionist was aged about 15 years, 05 months and 17 days at the time of incident and the same is evident from paragraph 7 of the order dated 13.08.2024.

5. Further submission is that taking note of age of revisionist i.e. about 15 incident, years, 05 months and 17 days at time of 2 CRLR No. 1045 of 2024 punishment/sentence, if any, could be awarded to the revisionist after taking note of Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015, as per which, maximum punishment of three years could be awarded to a juvenile. It is however subject to other provisions of the Act of 2015 including Section 21 of the Act of 2015.

6. It is further stated that the revisionist is in incarceration since 15.05.2024 and he is having no criminal history, which has not been opposed by learned AGA based upon counter affidavit. As such, taking note of the period of incarceration as also the intent of Section(s) 12 and 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015, the revisionist is entitled to be released on bail.

7. It is further stated that the victim, an adult from her physical appearance, who as per the case of prosecution was aged between 16-17 years on the date of incident, and there is no medical evidence available with the prosecution so support its case with regard to the allegations levelled to attract the offence as indicated under Section 376 IPC for the reason that upon due medical examination, the doctor concerned opined that no definite opinion on the basis of examination can be given.

8. Further submission is that in the aforesaid background of the case, the revisionist, who is having no criminal history, 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 criminals or may be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger.

9. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submitted that no illegality has been committed by the courts concerned in rejecting the prayer of bail sought by the revisionist, as there was ample evidence against him. However, he has not disputed the above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist.

10. Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of spirit of Section 12, Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015 and also the period of incarceration i.e. about 17 months as well as that there is no medical evidence on record to support the case of prosecution, as stated, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

11. The impugned judgment and order dated 13.08.2024, passed by the Special Judge, Juvenile Court, Raibareli in Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2024 and the order dated 16.07.2024, passed by the Principle Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Raibareli arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.199/2024, under Sections- 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Mill Area, District- Raibareli are set aside.

12. Let Child Abuser (XXX) be enlarged on bail, in the above mentioned case on executing a personal bond by his mother/natural guardian with two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the 3 CRLR No. 1045 of 2024 Court/Board concerned and on submission of undertaking on affidavit by his mother that she 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.

13. 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. October 6, 2025 Arun/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the private opposite party No. 2/complainant and opposite party No. 5/victim despite service of notice, as appears from Annexure No. 2 to the affidavit of service of State dated 24.09.2025. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In these circumstances and also this Court taking note of dated 24.09.2025, which says "It is made clear that on the next date of listing, the case would not be adjourned for absence of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 5 and appropriate orders would be passed in the case in first call", the Court proceeded to hear the instant bail appeal on merits. the order of

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. as well as 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 13.08.2024, passed by the Special Judge, Juvenile Court, Raibareli in Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2024 and the order dated 16.07.2024, passed by the Principle Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Raibareli arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.199/2024, under Sections- 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Mill Area, District- Raibareli.

4. It is stated that as per the case of the prosecution as indicated in FIR/Case Crime No.0199/2024 lodged on 19.04.2024 at Police Station- Mill Area, District- Raibareli, in relation to which the revisionist is in incarceration since 15.05.2024, the revisionist was aged about 15 years, 05 months and 17 days at the time of incident and the same is evident from paragraph 7 of the order dated 13.08.2024.

5. Further submission is that taking note of age of revisionist i.e. about 15 incident, years, 05 months and 17 days at time of 2 CRLR No. 1045 of 2024 punishment/sentence, if any, could be awarded to the revisionist after taking note of Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015, as per which, maximum punishment of three years could be awarded to a juvenile. It is however subject to other provisions of the Act of 2015 including Section 21 of the Act of 2015.

6. It is further stated that the revisionist is in incarceration since 15.05.2024 and he is having no criminal history, which has not been opposed by learned AGA based upon counter affidavit. As such, taking note of the period of incarceration as also the intent of Section(s) 12 and 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015, the revisionist is entitled to be released on bail.

7. It is further stated that the victim, an adult from her physical appearance, who as per the case of prosecution was aged between 16-17 years on the date of incident, and there is no medical evidence available with the prosecution so support its case with regard to the allegations levelled to attract the offence as indicated under Section 376 IPC for the reason that upon due medical examination, the doctor concerned opined that no definite opinion on the basis of examination can be given.

8. Further submission is that in the aforesaid background of the case, the revisionist, who is having no criminal history, 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 criminals or may be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger.

9. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submitted that no illegality has been committed by the courts concerned in rejecting the prayer of bail sought by the revisionist, as there was ample evidence against him. However, he has not disputed the above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist.

10. Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of spirit of Section 12, Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015 and also the period of incarceration i.e. about 17 months as well as that there is no medical evidence on record to support the case of prosecution, as stated, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

11. The impugned judgment and order dated 13.08.2024, passed by the Special Judge, Juvenile Court, Raibareli in Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2024 and the order dated 16.07.2024, passed by the Principle Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Raibareli arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.199/2024, under Sections- 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Mill Area, District- Raibareli are set aside.

12. Let Child Abuser (XXX) be enlarged on bail, in the above mentioned case on executing a personal bond by his mother/natural guardian with two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the 3 CRLR No. 1045 of 2024 Court/Board concerned and on submission of undertaking on affidavit by his mother that she 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.

13. 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. October 6, 2025 Arun/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench