Juvenile X Thru. Natural Guardian Father .....Revisionist(s) v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material placed on record.

2. It would be appropriate to indicate the order dated 11.09.2025, which reads as under: "From Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed by the State, it appears that service of notice upon opposite party nos.2 and 3 is sufficient. However, when the case was called out, no one appeared on behalf of opposite party nos.2 and 3 to opposite the present revision. In the interest of justice, the case is adjourned for the day. List/put up this case on 19.09.2025. It is made clear that on the next dates, the case shall not be adjourned in the absence of opposite party nos.2 and 3 who are contesting parties and appropriate order would be passed. "

3. This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care 2 CRLR No. 1036 of 2024 and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short "Act of 2015") has been filed against the judgment and order dated 03.08.2024, passed by the Children Court / Special Judge, POCSO Exclusive, Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2024 and the order dated 16.07.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli.

4. It has been submitted by the counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further, submission is that at the time of incident, the revisionist was aged about 11 years and 9 months and from the para-5 of the report of Probation Officer, it is apparent that he has been falsely implicated. According to which in an altercation i.e. the alleged time of incident, the victim aged about 6 years, sustained injuries. The referred para is extracted hereinbelow: "5. समस्याओं के सुझाए गए कारण- जांच के समय अपचारी के ंछने पर बताया गया िक अपचारी की माता और आस-पड़ोस से पू लड़की (लष्मी) की माता दोनों िमलकर खेत अिधया/खेट बटाई पर ले रखा था दोनों िमलकर कटाई करती थी वहाँ दोनों बच्चे भी खेलते रहते थे उसी बीच पता नहीं िकस बात को लेकर लड़ाई-झगड़ा शुरू हो गया और पता चला लष्मी (लड़की) को चोट लग गयी। थाना पुिलस हुआ वही पर समझौता करा िदया गया दोनों के बीच उसके कु छ िदनों बाद लड़की (लष्मी) की माता ने दीपक (बाल अपचारी) पर आरोप लगा िदये िक उसने मेरी बच्ची के साथ गलत काम िकया िजसके कारण उसकी बच्ची को चोट आयी है। ऐसा बताया गया।”

5. It is further stated that the revisionist, who at time time of the incident was about 11 years and 9 months, could be sentenced, if the case of the prosecution established during trial court, for a maximum period of 3 years in view of Section 18(1)(g) which however is subject to other provision of the Act of 2015, including Section 21.

6. It is also stated that taking note of the aforesaid provisions as also the intent of Section 12, the revisionist whose period of incarceration comes to about 1 year and 3 months since 07.06.2024, having no criminal history, which has not been opposed by the learned AGA, is entitled to be released on bail.

7. Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the 3 CRLR No. 1036 of 2024 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.

8. Further submission is that in the aforesaid background of the case, 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.

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, they have not dispute 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 as well as medical opinion, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

11. The impugned judgment and order dated 03.08.2024, passed by the Children Court / Special Judge, POCSO Exclusive, Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2024 and the order dated 16.07.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli are set aside.

12. Let Juvenile 'X', of 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 her counsel, failing which, the order of bail granted to Juvenile may be cancelled. 4 CRLR No. 1036 of 2024

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. September 19, 2025 KR (Saurabh Lavania,J.) RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material placed on record.

2. It would be appropriate to indicate the order dated 11.09.2025, which reads as under: "From Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed by the State, it appears that service of notice upon opposite party nos.2 and 3 is sufficient. However, when the case was called out, no one appeared on behalf of opposite party nos.2 and 3 to opposite the present revision. In the interest of justice, the case is adjourned for the day. List/put up this case on 19.09.2025. It is made clear that on the next dates, the case shall not be adjourned in the absence of opposite party nos.2 and 3 who are contesting parties and appropriate order would be passed. "

3. This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care 2 CRLR No. 1036 of 2024 and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short "Act of 2015") has been filed against the judgment and order dated 03.08.2024, passed by the Children Court / Special Judge, POCSO Exclusive, Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2024 and the order dated 16.07.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli.

4. It has been submitted by the counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further, submission is that at the time of incident, the revisionist was aged about 11 years and 9 months and from the para-5 of the report of Probation Officer, it is apparent that he has been falsely implicated. According to which in an altercation i.e. the alleged time of incident, the victim aged about 6 years, sustained injuries. The referred para is extracted hereinbelow: "5. समस्याओं के सुझाए गए कारण- जांच के समय अपचारी के ंछने पर बताया गया िक अपचारी की माता और आस-पड़ोस से पू लड़की (लष्मी) की माता दोनों िमलकर खेत अिधया/खेट बटाई पर ले रखा था दोनों िमलकर कटाई करती थी वहाँ दोनों बच्चे भी खेलते रहते थे उसी बीच पता नहीं िकस बात को लेकर लड़ाई-झगड़ा शुरू हो गया और पता चला लष्मी (लड़की) को चोट लग गयी। थाना पुिलस हुआ वही पर समझौता करा िदया गया दोनों के बीच उसके कु छ िदनों बाद लड़की (लष्मी) की माता ने दीपक (बाल अपचारी) पर आरोप लगा िदये िक उसने मेरी बच्ची के साथ गलत काम िकया िजसके कारण उसकी बच्ची को चोट आयी है। ऐसा बताया गया।”

5. It is further stated that the revisionist, who at time time of the incident was about 11 years and 9 months, could be sentenced, if the case of the prosecution established during trial court, for a maximum period of 3 years in view of Section 18(1)(g) which however is subject to other provision of the Act of 2015, including Section 21.

6. It is also stated that taking note of the aforesaid provisions as also the intent of Section 12, the revisionist whose period of incarceration comes to about 1 year and 3 months since 07.06.2024, having no criminal history, which has not been opposed by the learned AGA, is entitled to be released on bail.

7. Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the 3 CRLR No. 1036 of 2024 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.

8. Further submission is that in the aforesaid background of the case, 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.

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, they have not dispute 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 as well as medical opinion, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

11. The impugned judgment and order dated 03.08.2024, passed by the Children Court / Special Judge, POCSO Exclusive, Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2024 and the order dated 16.07.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli are set aside.

12. Let Juvenile 'X', of 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 her counsel, failing which, the order of bail granted to Juvenile may be cancelled. 4 CRLR No. 1036 of 2024

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. September 19, 2025 KR (Saurabh Lavania,J.) RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench