HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 349 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Badrul Hasan, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Anubhav Awasthi, learned counsel for opposite party No.2/complainant as well as perused the material placed on record. 2. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 in the Court today is taken on record. 3. 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 03.03.2025, passed by the Juvenile Court/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2025 and the order dated 08.01.2025, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 223/2024 arising out of FIR No.391/2024, under Sections- 127(2), 70(2), 351(2), 115(2) BNS, Sections 5(G), 6 POCSO Act, Section 66(E) IT Act, Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act and Sections 3, 5(1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, Police Station- Sarojni Nagar, District- Lucknow. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist, who is in incarceration since 25.09.2024, 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. 5. It is further stated that as per the story of prosecution, the victim at the time of incident was aged about 14 years and the revisionist (juvenile) was aged about 16 years, as according to the report of Probation Officer concerned the revisionist was born on 14.08.2008. In this view of the matter, the revisionist was not in dominant position and both at the time of alleged incident were of adolescent age. 6. It is further stated that as per the story of prosecution, the main allegations against the revisionist, in nutshell, are to the effect that he committed rape with the minor Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Raghuveer Singh, Sanjay Kumar Rao Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Anubhav Awasthi, Varsha Pandey X (Juvenile ) Thru. His Father .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) victim and taking note the same, the FIR was lodged as Case Crime No. 391 of 2024 on 24.09.2024 at Police Station- Sarojni Nagar, District- Lucknow under Sections- 127(2), 70(2), 351(2) BNS, Sections 5g, 6 POCSO Act, Section 66E IT Act and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act. 7. It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, is languishing in jail since 25.09.2024 and he is having no criminal history, which has not been opposed by the side opposite. 8. It is further stated that in fact the FIR in issue is completely false and concocted and the revisionist has not committed any crime. 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 11 months 15 days 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. It is further stated that medical opinion in fact does not support the story of prosecution particularly with regard to attract the offence under Section 70(2) of B.N.S. as upon due examination of victim, the doctor concerned could not found any injury particularly internal injury as the doctor in specific terms indicated that "no definite opinion can be given regarding sexual violence till F.S.L. reports is available". 11. It is also stated that according to the case of prosecution, the revisionist and victim were present at Hotel Shanti Paradise In on the date of alleged incident, and as per CCTV footage which is subject to evidence adduced by the parties during trial, and from this aspect of the case it can be inferred that both were adolescent i.e. revisionist and victim were known to each other and victim on her volition accompanied the revisionist. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, submitted that no illegality has been committed by the courts concerned in CRLR No. 349 of 2025 2 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. 15. Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case 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 well as medical opinion, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. 16. The impugned judgment and order dated 03.03.2025, passed by the Juvenile Court/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2025 and the order dated 08.01.2025, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 223/2024 arising out of FIR No.391/2024, under Sections- 127(2), 70(2), 351(2), 115(2) BNS, Sections 5(G), 6 POCSO Act, Section 66(E) IT Act, Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act and Sections 3, 5(1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, Police Station- Sarojni Nagar, District- Lucknow are set aside. 17. 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 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. 18. 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 12, 2025 Arun/- CRLR No. 349 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench