Juvenile S, Thru. His Brother v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And

1. Heard Shri Niyaz Ahamad, Advocate holding brief for Shri Nijam Ahamad, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

2. Learned A.G.A., at the very outset, has brought to the notice of this Court that the police station concerned had informed Opposite Party No. 2 regarding pendency of this criminal revision before this Court. In spite of the information having been given to Opposite Party No. 2, no one is present on his behalf.

3. The captioned criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar in connection to Case Crime No. 353 of 2025, registered under Sections 352, 351(2), 78 and 70(2) of B.N.S., 2023, Sections 13/14 & 5/6 of P.O.C.S.O. Act, 2012 and Section 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in Police Station - Jalalpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar whereby, the application for bail filed by the revisionist had been rejected. The revisionist through this criminal revision has also challenged the order dated 03.10.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act), Ambedkar Nagar, whereby criminal appeal filed by the revisionist had been dismissed and the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar had been affirmed.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist, at the very outset, has submitted that the co-accused having identical role in the crime in question had already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 passed in 2 CRLR No. 1172 of 2025 Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9643 of 2025. It has further been submitted that since the co-accused having identical role had already been granted bail by this Court, the revisionist is also entitled for parity of the said order and therefore, this criminal revision is liable to be allowed and the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State though has opposed this criminal revision but could not deny that the co-accused, having identical role in the crime in question, had already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9643 of 2025.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and I find, that the co-accused, having identical role in the crime in question, had already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated

13.10.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9643 of

2025. The order dated 13.10.2025 is extracted as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. None has appeared for the informant despite notice.

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.353 of 2025, under Section 352, 351(2), 78, 70(2) BNS, Section 5/6 & 13/14 of POCSO Act & Section 67B of IT Act, P.S. Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

3. The FIR in question was lodged alleging that daughter of the informant aged about 14 years was studying in school when the applicant made certain inappropriate videos viral on the Instagram which has resulted in mental harassment of the victim. It was also stated that there was apprehension that any untoward incident would be done. In the statement under Section 183 BNSS, the allegation of blackmail by showing inappropriate photos were made. No allegation of rape was levelled. The medical report on record does not indicate any injury and the hymen was also found to be intact. The tentative age of the victim is around 16 to 17 years.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

5. Considering the statement under Section 183 BNSS and that in the FIR, there is no allegation of an offence under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 15.08.2025, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

6. Let the applicant Mohd. Hassan be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions: 3 CRLR No. 1172 of 2025 (a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and (c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence."

7. This Court finds that the role of the present revisionist is identical to that of the co-accused, Mohd. Hassan, who had already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9643 of 2025.

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

9. The order dated 19.09.2025 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar and the order dated 03.10.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act), Ambedkar Nagar are set aside.

10. I hereby direct the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar / competent court to enlarge the revisionist on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, 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.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. November 11, 2025 Lokesh Kumar (Manjive Shukla,J.) LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Niyaz Ahamad, Advocate holding brief for Shri Nijam Ahamad, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

2. Learned A.G.A., at the very outset, has brought to the notice of this Court that the police station concerned had informed Opposite Party No. 2 regarding pendency of this criminal revision before this Court. In spite of the information having been given to Opposite Party No. 2, no one is present on his behalf.

3. The captioned criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar in connection to Case Crime No. 353 of 2025, registered under Sections 352, 351(2), 78 and 70(2) of B.N.S., 2023, Sections 13/14 & 5/6 of P.O.C.S.O. Act, 2012 and Section 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in Police Station - Jalalpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar whereby, the application for bail filed by the revisionist had been rejected. The revisionist through this criminal revision has also challenged the order dated 03.10.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act), Ambedkar Nagar, whereby criminal appeal filed by the revisionist had been dismissed and the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar had been affirmed.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist, at the very outset, has submitted that the co-accused having identical role in the crime in question had already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 passed in 2 CRLR No. 1172 of 2025 Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9643 of 2025. It has further been submitted that since the co-accused having identical role had already been granted bail by this Court, the revisionist is also entitled for parity of the said order and therefore, this criminal revision is liable to be allowed and the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State though has opposed this criminal revision but could not deny that the co-accused, having identical role in the crime in question, had already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9643 of 2025.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and I find, that the co-accused, having identical role in the crime in question, had already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated

13.10.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9643 of

2025. The order dated 13.10.2025 is extracted as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. None has appeared for the informant despite notice.

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.353 of 2025, under Section 352, 351(2), 78, 70(2) BNS, Section 5/6 & 13/14 of POCSO Act & Section 67B of IT Act, P.S. Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

3. The FIR in question was lodged alleging that daughter of the informant aged about 14 years was studying in school when the applicant made certain inappropriate videos viral on the Instagram which has resulted in mental harassment of the victim. It was also stated that there was apprehension that any untoward incident would be done. In the statement under Section 183 BNSS, the allegation of blackmail by showing inappropriate photos were made. No allegation of rape was levelled. The medical report on record does not indicate any injury and the hymen was also found to be intact. The tentative age of the victim is around 16 to 17 years.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

5. Considering the statement under Section 183 BNSS and that in the FIR, there is no allegation of an offence under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 15.08.2025, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

6. Let the applicant Mohd. Hassan be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions: 3 CRLR No. 1172 of 2025 (a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and (c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence."

7. This Court finds that the role of the present revisionist is identical to that of the co-accused, Mohd. Hassan, who had already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9643 of 2025.

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

9. The order dated 19.09.2025 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar and the order dated 03.10.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act), Ambedkar Nagar are set aside.

10. I hereby direct the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar / competent court to enlarge the revisionist on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, 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.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. November 11, 2025 Lokesh Kumar (Manjive Shukla,J.) LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench