Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143425 Reserved on 21.7.2025 Delivered on 21.8.2025 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6087 of 2024 Revisionist :- Mohammad Saif Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Diwan Saifullah Khan,Mumtaj Ansari,Zia Uddin Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J. 1. Heard Sri D.S. Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed to set and aside the judgement and order dated 19.9.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act, Varanasi, in Criminal Appeal No. 246 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 97 of 2017, under Sections 412, 120-B I.P.C, Police Station Chowk, District Varanasi. 3. It appears from the record that the revisionist was directed to be enlarged on bail by the Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi, by the order dated 15.6.2017 for committing the alleged offences under Sections 412, 120-B IPC. 4. Learned counsel for State preferred a criminal appeal No. 246 of 2017 before the Children's Court challenging the order dated 15.6.2017 granting bail to the revisionist on the ground that the prosecution was not heard, when the bail was granted to the revisionist. Hence by the order dated 19.9.2024 impugned in this criminal revision, order of bail dated 15.6.2017 passed by Juvenile Justice Board was cancelled and the Juvenile Justice Board was directed to pass a fresh order on bail application of the revisionist after hearing learned counsel for State. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that there was no justification for the appellate court to remand the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board for re-consideration of bail application of the revisionist. Appellate court could have heard the State and decided the bail application itself. After cancellation of the bail granted to the revisionist, the Juvenile Justice Board did nothing in the matter and when this Court directed the learned counsel for the State to arrest the revisionist by the order dated 3.7.2025, he has himself surrendered on 14.7.2025 before the Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi and is jail since then. 6. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the order of appellate court is justified since Juvenile Justice Board declared the revisionist as a "child in conflict with law" on 15.6.2017 and on the same day he was granted bail, which was not justified. No opportunity of hearing was granted to learned counsel for the State while granting bail to the revisionist. 7. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that despite service of notice, informant, opposite party no.2, has not appeared before this Court. Argument raised before the appellate court has been raised by the learned AGA before this Court also that on 15.6.2017 the revisionist was declared as a "child in conflict with law" and the same day, he was directed to be enlarged on bail, which is not justified. This Court finds that co-accused, Altaf, Salman @ Pappu, Faizan, Shivam Sharma, Mohammad Arif, Aman Soni, Azad, Sudhindranath Sharma, Salil Verma @ Kunal, Zishan and Vineeta Sharma, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court and their bail orders have been brought on record by means of supplementary affidavit dated 19.7.2025. The applicant was not named in the FIR. He has been implicated on the basis of recovery subsequent have been made which learned counsel for the revisionist has pointed out. After being released on bail, he has not misused the liberty on bail. Hence the order passed by the appellate court dated 19.9.2024 does not appears to be justified. It is accordingly set aside and revision is allowed. The order of Juvenile Justice Board granted bail to the revisionist is affirmed. The revisionist is directed to be enlarged on bail. 8. Let the revisionist, X-Juvenile, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties each of like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (i) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses; (ii) The revisionist through guardian shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law; (iii) The revisionist through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code/ 269 B.N.S.S. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Ruchi Agrahari Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad