State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. And Another vs Party(s)

1. Heard Shri Ishan Baghel, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

2. The captioned criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the judgment and order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act), Gonda in Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2025, whereby the appellate court had dismissed the appeal and had affirmed the order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda by means of which the application for grant of bail filed by the revisionist had been rejected.

3. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that the Opposite Party No.2 had lodged an F.I.R. bearing F.I.R. No.0082 of 2025 in Police Station –Kotwali Dehat, District-Gonda which has been registered under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 118(1) B.N.S., 2023. It has further been contended that the revisionist herein has not been named as an accused in the F.I.R.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has submitted that in the F.I.R., it had been stated that one Manoj Tiwari, son of Vjay Kumar had been assaulted by the accused named in the F.I.R. The injured was initially medically examined in the District Hospital, Gonda and there injury report was prepared in which name of Manoj Tiwari finds place. Later on the injured was shifted from District Hospital ,Gonda to King George's Medical University, Lucknow. It has further been submitted that in the record prepared at K.G.M.U., Lucknow, name of Manoj Tiwari had been changed 2 CRLR No. 1198 of 2025 by Pawan Tiwari and since Pawan Tiwari died, as such in the post-mortem report his name finds place.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that it is a case in which Manoj Tiwari sustained injuries and thereafter he has been replaced by one Pawan Tiwari who had died due to an accident. It has further been argued that there is severe variation in the injuries mentioned in the injury report and ante-mortem injuries shown in the post-mortem report, as in the injury report prepared at District Hospital, Gonda there is no injury on the head of the injured, whereas in the post-mortem a serious injury has been shown on the head of the deceased.

6. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the accused named in the F.I.R. had already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 29.08.2025, 25.09.2025 & 25.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No.7720 of 2025, 4481 of 2025 and 5887 of 2025 respectively. It has also been pointed out that in the entire prosecution story, the revisionist has been assigned only a general role and therefore, once the accused named in the F.I.R. had been granted bail by this Court, the revisionist is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda has not consider the report submitted by the District Probation Officer, Gonda in its correct perspective and on its own presumptions had rejected the bail application filed by the juvenile/revisionist. It has also been argued that even the appellate court has not considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and, in absolutely mechanical manner, had rejected the appeal filed by the revisionist and had affirmed the order passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda.

8. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has opposed this criminal revision. However, he could not deny that the main accused named in the F.I.R. had already been granted bail by this Court. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State also could not point out any difference in the role of the revisionist and the role of the main accused who had been granted bail by this Court in the crime in question.

9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that in the F.I.R., it had been mentioned 3 CRLR No. 1198 of 2025 that one Manoj Tiwari had suffered injuries and in the injury report prepared at District Hospital, Gonda, Manoj Tiwari had been shown as injured person. I further find that when the injured was shifted from District Hospital, Gonda to K.G.M.U, Lucknow the name of Manoj Tiwari has been replaced by Pawan Tiwri.

10. It is noteworthy that there is variation in the injury report prepared at the District Hospital, Gonda and ante-mortem injuries sown in the post-mortem report of the deceased, as in the injury report, there is no injury on the head of the injured, whereas in the post-mortem report there exists an ante- mortem injury on the head of the deceased.

11. This Court finds that the accused, who have been named in the F.I.R., had already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 29.08.2025,

25.09.2025 & 25.09.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No.7720 of 2025, 4481 of 2025 and 5887 of 2025 respectively.

12. This Court further finds that the role of the present revisionist is not different to that of the role assigned to the accused who had been already been granted bail by this Court. It is noteworthy that the revisionist is a juvenile but the Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda, while considering his bail application, has not considered the report submitted by the District Probation Officer, Gonda in its correct perspective and further role of the revisionist in the crime in question, vis-a-vis the role of the main accused has not been considered and straightaway his application for bail has been rejected. The appellate court has also not considered the facts and circumstances of the case in its correct perspective and had rejected the appeal vide impugned order dated 06.09.2025.

13. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly keeping in view the fact that the accused named in the F.I.R. had already been granted bail by this Court, this Court is of the view that this criminal revision is liable to be allowed and the revisionist is liable to be enlarged on bail.

14. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda and the order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act), Gonda in Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2025, are hereby set aside. 4 CRLR No. 1198 of 2025

15. The Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda/competent court is hereby directed to enlarge the revisionist on bail in Case Crime No.82 of 2025 registered under Sections 191(2), 103(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 3(5) B.N.S., 2023 in Police Station–Kotwali Dehat, District-Gonda, on furnishing two sureties and a personal bond to its satisfaction with the following conditions:- (i.) The revisionist shall cooperate in early disposal of the case without seeking unnecessary adjournments. (ii.) The revisionist shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. October 17, 2025 akhilesh/- (Manjive Shukla,J.) AKHILESHWAR KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Ishan Baghel, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

2. The captioned criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the judgment and order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act), Gonda in Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2025, whereby the appellate court had dismissed the appeal and had affirmed the order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda by means of which the application for grant of bail filed by the revisionist had been rejected.

3. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that the Opposite Party No.2 had lodged an F.I.R. bearing F.I.R. No.0082 of 2025 in Police Station –Kotwali Dehat, District-Gonda which has been registered under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 118(1) B.N.S., 2023. It has further been contended that the revisionist herein has not been named as an accused in the F.I.R.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has submitted that in the F.I.R., it had been stated that one Manoj Tiwari, son of Vjay Kumar had been assaulted by the accused named in the F.I.R. The injured was initially medically examined in the District Hospital, Gonda and there injury report was prepared in which name of Manoj Tiwari finds place. Later on the injured was shifted from District Hospital ,Gonda to King George's Medical University, Lucknow. It has further been submitted that in the record prepared at K.G.M.U., Lucknow, name of Manoj Tiwari had been changed 2 CRLR No. 1198 of 2025 by Pawan Tiwari and since Pawan Tiwari died, as such in the post-mortem report his name finds place.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that it is a case in which Manoj Tiwari sustained injuries and thereafter he has been replaced by one Pawan Tiwari who had died due to an accident. It has further been argued that there is severe variation in the injuries mentioned in the injury report and ante-mortem injuries shown in the post-mortem report, as in the injury report prepared at District Hospital, Gonda there is no injury on the head of the injured, whereas in the post-mortem a serious injury has been shown on the head of the deceased.

6. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the accused named in the F.I.R. had already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 29.08.2025, 25.09.2025 & 25.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No.7720 of 2025, 4481 of 2025 and 5887 of 2025 respectively. It has also been pointed out that in the entire prosecution story, the revisionist has been assigned only a general role and therefore, once the accused named in the F.I.R. had been granted bail by this Court, the revisionist is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda has not consider the report submitted by the District Probation Officer, Gonda in its correct perspective and on its own presumptions had rejected the bail application filed by the juvenile/revisionist. It has also been argued that even the appellate court has not considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and, in absolutely mechanical manner, had rejected the appeal filed by the revisionist and had affirmed the order passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda.

8. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has opposed this criminal revision. However, he could not deny that the main accused named in the F.I.R. had already been granted bail by this Court. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State also could not point out any difference in the role of the revisionist and the role of the main accused who had been granted bail by this Court in the crime in question.

9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that in the F.I.R., it had been mentioned 3 CRLR No. 1198 of 2025 that one Manoj Tiwari had suffered injuries and in the injury report prepared at District Hospital, Gonda, Manoj Tiwari had been shown as injured person. I further find that when the injured was shifted from District Hospital, Gonda to K.G.M.U, Lucknow the name of Manoj Tiwari has been replaced by Pawan Tiwri.

10. It is noteworthy that there is variation in the injury report prepared at the District Hospital, Gonda and ante-mortem injuries sown in the post-mortem report of the deceased, as in the injury report, there is no injury on the head of the injured, whereas in the post-mortem report there exists an ante- mortem injury on the head of the deceased.

11. This Court finds that the accused, who have been named in the F.I.R., had already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 29.08.2025,

25.09.2025 & 25.09.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No.7720 of 2025, 4481 of 2025 and 5887 of 2025 respectively.

12. This Court further finds that the role of the present revisionist is not different to that of the role assigned to the accused who had been already been granted bail by this Court. It is noteworthy that the revisionist is a juvenile but the Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda, while considering his bail application, has not considered the report submitted by the District Probation Officer, Gonda in its correct perspective and further role of the revisionist in the crime in question, vis-a-vis the role of the main accused has not been considered and straightaway his application for bail has been rejected. The appellate court has also not considered the facts and circumstances of the case in its correct perspective and had rejected the appeal vide impugned order dated 06.09.2025.

13. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly keeping in view the fact that the accused named in the F.I.R. had already been granted bail by this Court, this Court is of the view that this criminal revision is liable to be allowed and the revisionist is liable to be enlarged on bail.

14. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda and the order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act), Gonda in Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2025, are hereby set aside. 4 CRLR No. 1198 of 2025

15. The Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda/competent court is hereby directed to enlarge the revisionist on bail in Case Crime No.82 of 2025 registered under Sections 191(2), 103(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 3(5) B.N.S., 2023 in Police Station–Kotwali Dehat, District-Gonda, on furnishing two sureties and a personal bond to its satisfaction with the following conditions:- (i.) The revisionist shall cooperate in early disposal of the case without seeking unnecessary adjournments. (ii.) The revisionist shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. October 17, 2025 akhilesh/- (Manjive Shukla,J.) AKHILESHWAR KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench