Revisionist As S v. State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another

: Anand Kumar, Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Avinash Srivastava, Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

1. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the private opposite party No. 2/complainant despite service of notice. However, learned A.G.A is present in the Court.

2. In these circumstances and also taking note of the order of this Court dated 02.09.2025, which says "It is made clear that the case would not be adjourned on the next date on account of absence of opposite party no. 2 and the same would be heard on merits as the issue relates to enlargement of revisionist on bail.", the Court proceeded to hear the instant bail appeal on merits.

3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

4. 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 26.09.2023, passed by the Learned Additional District Judge/Juvenile Court, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2022 confirming the judgment and order dated 20.07.2022, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Case No. 44/2022 arising out of FIR No. 83 of 2022, under Sections- 302 and 34 I.P.C, Police Station- Kanhai, District- Pratapgarh.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist, who is in incarceration since 12.03.2022, has been falsely implicated in the case, inasmuch as, the revisionist has not committed any offence as alleged and the prosecution story is false and concocted. 2 CRLR No. 1255 of 2023

6. It is further stated that as per the story of prosecution, the revisionist was juvenile at the time of incident and was aged about 16 years 7 months. In this view of the matter, the revisionist was not in dominant position at the time of alleged incident and was of adolescent age.

7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the co- accused Ajay Kumar Rawat has already been released on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1888 of 2023 vide order dated 27.03.2023

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the FIR in issue is completely false and concocted and the revisionist has not committed any crime and it is further stated that the recovery on pointing out of the revisionist is fake as there is no independent public witness to the said recovery. It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, is languishing in jail since 12.03.2022 and he is having no criminal history, which has not been opposed by the side opposite.

9. It is further stated that if the story of prosecution is taken on its face value even in that eventuality, taking note of spirit of Section 12, Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015 and also the period of incarceration of revisionist i.e about 3.5 years and also the punishment awarded to a juvenile under Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015 read with other provisions including Section 21 of the Act of 2015, the revisionist is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

10. Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the 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.

11. 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.

12. Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the informant, 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.

13. Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the aforesaid facts including the delay in conclusion of trial and the 3 CRLR No. 1255 of 2023 period of incarceration of the revisionist as also the fact that co-accused Ajay Kumar Rawat has already been released on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1888 of 2023 vide order dated 27.03.2023 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 also the chances of conclusion of trial in near future are bleak, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

14. The impugned judgment and order dated 26.09.2023, passed by the Learned Additional District Judge/Juvenile Court, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2022 confirming the judgment and order dated 20.07.2022, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Case No. 44/2022 arising out of FIR No. 83 of 2022, under Sections- 302 and 34 I.P.C, Police Station- Kanhai, District- Pratapgarh are set aside.

15. Let Revisionist As S, 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.

16. 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 22, 2025 DiVYa (Saurabh Lavania,J.) DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

: Anand Kumar, Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Avinash Srivastava, Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

1. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the private opposite party No. 2/complainant despite service of notice. However, learned A.G.A is present in the Court.

2. In these circumstances and also taking note of the order of this Court dated 02.09.2025, which says "It is made clear that the case would not be adjourned on the next date on account of absence of opposite party no. 2 and the same would be heard on merits as the issue relates to enlargement of revisionist on bail.", the Court proceeded to hear the instant bail appeal on merits.

3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

4. 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 26.09.2023, passed by the Learned Additional District Judge/Juvenile Court, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2022 confirming the judgment and order dated 20.07.2022, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Case No. 44/2022 arising out of FIR No. 83 of 2022, under Sections- 302 and 34 I.P.C, Police Station- Kanhai, District- Pratapgarh.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist, who is in incarceration since 12.03.2022, has been falsely implicated in the case, inasmuch as, the revisionist has not committed any offence as alleged and the prosecution story is false and concocted. 2 CRLR No. 1255 of 2023

6. It is further stated that as per the story of prosecution, the revisionist was juvenile at the time of incident and was aged about 16 years 7 months. In this view of the matter, the revisionist was not in dominant position at the time of alleged incident and was of adolescent age.

7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the co- accused Ajay Kumar Rawat has already been released on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1888 of 2023 vide order dated 27.03.2023

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the FIR in issue is completely false and concocted and the revisionist has not committed any crime and it is further stated that the recovery on pointing out of the revisionist is fake as there is no independent public witness to the said recovery. It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, is languishing in jail since 12.03.2022 and he is having no criminal history, which has not been opposed by the side opposite.

9. It is further stated that if the story of prosecution is taken on its face value even in that eventuality, taking note of spirit of Section 12, Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015 and also the period of incarceration of revisionist i.e about 3.5 years and also the punishment awarded to a juvenile under Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015 read with other provisions including Section 21 of the Act of 2015, the revisionist is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

10. Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the 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.

11. 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.

12. Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the informant, 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.

13. Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the aforesaid facts including the delay in conclusion of trial and the 3 CRLR No. 1255 of 2023 period of incarceration of the revisionist as also the fact that co-accused Ajay Kumar Rawat has already been released on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1888 of 2023 vide order dated 27.03.2023 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 also the chances of conclusion of trial in near future are bleak, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed.

14. The impugned judgment and order dated 26.09.2023, passed by the Learned Additional District Judge/Juvenile Court, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2022 confirming the judgment and order dated 20.07.2022, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Case No. 44/2022 arising out of FIR No. 83 of 2022, under Sections- 302 and 34 I.P.C, Police Station- Kanhai, District- Pratapgarh are set aside.

15. Let Revisionist As S, 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.

16. 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 22, 2025 DiVYa (Saurabh Lavania,J.) DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench