Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47954 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 124 of 2025 Revisionist :- Juvenile X Thru. His Father Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Yamuna Prasad Yadav,Pashupati Nath Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Kishore,Rajesh Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Heard counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record. 2. 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 03.01.2025, passed by the Juvenile Court/Special Judge, Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2024 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate of U.P.), which was preferred against the order dated 20.11.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli in Misc. Case No.85/2024 (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.243 of 2024, under Sections 191(3), 103(2), 352 of B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Naseerabad, District- Raebareli. 3. While pressing the present revision, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that co-accused, namely, Naveen Singh and Harshit Mishra have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 02.07.2025 and 07.07.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.1500 of 2025 and 3753 of 2024 respectively. Relevant portion of order dated 02.07.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No.1500 of 2025 is extracted hereinunder. "Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 16.04.2025 passed in Bail application no. 901 of 2025 (Naveen Singh Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 243 of 2024, under Sections 191 (3), 103 (2), 352, 3 (5) of B.N.S. Act and Section 3 (2) (v) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Nasirabad, District Raebareli by the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act Raebareli. As per the service report dated 12.06.2025, the notice has personally been served upon the respondent no. 2 as per the report submitted by the C.J.M. dated 10.09.2025 but neither respondent no. 2 is present nor any counsel has put in appearance on his behalf. The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged on 11.08.2024 under Sections 191 (3), 103 (2), 352 and 3/5 of B.N.S., as well as Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act of 1989 (amended in 2015), against seven named persons and five unnamed individuals, including the present appellant. The FIR alleges that the appellant, along with other co-accused persons, visited the informant's residence on 11.08.2024 and asked his son to accompany them, claiming that Vishal Singh (Block Pramukh Pratinidhi) was calling him. When the son resisted, Arjun Yadav, one of the co-accused, reportedly used caste-related slurs and threatened that if he would not come, he would be shot. Consequently, the son tried to flee, but Arjun Yadav shot him, resulting in his death. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that neither the FIR nor the informant's statement recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S.S. mentions that the appellant shot his son. In the statement, the informant attributes the role of carrying the firearm to Arjun Yadav, who is also said to have used the caste-related slurs. During cross-examination, the informant acknowledged that the appellant was a friend of his son, having visited their home 10 to 20 times previously, and had been there a day before the incident, meaning thereby that appellant was not present on the day of the incident as alleged in the FIR and the statement given under Section 180 of B.N.S.S. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has rejected the bail of appellant primarily on the ground that the injuries found on the deceased's body were corroborating with the medical evidence, without considering who actually used the firearm and uttered the caste-related words towards the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below has mis-appreciated itself in reading evidence on record. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 13.08.2024. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Learned AGA has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the accused appellant that the appellant has not been any role in the incident. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, without commenting upon merits, it is found that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act Raebareli in Bail Application no. 901 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.243 of 2024, under Sections 191 (3), 103 (2), 352, 3 (5) of B.N.S. Act and Section 3 (2) (v) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Nasirabad, District Raebareli is set aside." 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the case, inasmuch as, the revisionist has not committed any offence as alleged and the prosecution story is false, concocted and misconceived. 5. It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, is languishing in jail since 12.08.2024, which has not been opposed by the side opposite, and as per Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015, the maximum punishment which could be awarded to a juvenile is three years and as such, taking note of the period of incarceration, the juvenile is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In these circumstances, the revisionist is also 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. 6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, on the other hand, submitted that no illegality has been committed by both the courts below as there was ample evidence against the revisionist, but they have not disputed the above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist. 7. Thus, having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that co-accused namely, Naveen Singh and Harshit Mishra have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 02.07.2025 and 07.07.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.1500 of 2025 and 3753 of 2024 respectively, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. 8. The impugned judgment and order dated 03.01.2025, passed by the Juvenile Court/Special Judge, Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2024 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate of U.P.), which was preferred against the order dated 20.11.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli in Misc. Case No.85/2024 (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.243 of 2024, under Sections 191(3), 103(2), 352 of B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Naseerabad, District- Raebareli are set aside. 9. 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 sister 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 his counsel, failing which, the order of bail granted to Juvenile may be cancelled. 10. 10. 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. Order Date :- 14.8.2025 Anand/- Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench