HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 340 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Rajesh Nayak, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and perused the material placed on 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 05.02.2025, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2025, which was preferred against the order dated 04.01.2025, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar, arising out of Case Crime No. 0517 of 2024, under Sections 64, 109 BNS, & Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Kotwali Akbarpur, District-Ambedkar Nagar. 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 stated that the case of the prosecution against the revisionist is completely false, as apparent from the FIR lodged on 20.08.2024 as FIR No. 0517 of 2024 under Sections 64, 109 BNS, akin to Sections 376, 307 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Akbarpur, District-Ambedkar Nagar, and also other Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Saumya Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Arvind Kumar Mishra, Mukul Kumar Singh, Rajesh Kumar, Sudhir Kumar Rai Juvenile Of Case Crime No. 517/2024 Thru. His Natural Guardian Mother .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P Thru. Prin . Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) documents on record, including the copy of the statement(s) of the victim recorded in terms of section 183 BNSS as well as the medico legal report. 6. Further stated that the opposite party No. 2, aged about 52 years, has leveled allegations of rape against the revisionist, who is about 16 years of age, which itself indicates that the prosecution's story is completely false and concocted. It is also stated that to support the allegation of committing the crime, there is no medical evidence available with the prosecution as the medico legal examination report indicates that the victim sustained no injury (either external or internal). 7. It is also stated that according to the allegations levelled in the FIR in relation to which, the revisionist having criminal history of three cases, which has been explained in paragraph 11 of the affidavit dated 18.03.2025, is in jail since 22.08.2024, would indicate that on account of creating pressure on the neck of the opposite party No.2 based upon which the FIR was lodged under Section 109 BNS, akin to Section 307 IPC, victim started bleeding from her mouth, but this aspect is not established by the medico legal report. 8. It is further stated that taking note of the period of incarceration, which started from 22.08.2024, the revisionist is entitled to be released on bail for the reason that according to the Section 18(1)(g) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the maximum punishment that can be awarded to a juvenile is three years which is however subject to the other provisions of the Act of 2015 including Section 21. Therefore, considering the period of incarceration already undergone, the juvenile is entitled to be released on bail. 10. It is further stated that in these circumstances, the revisionist is entitled to be enlarged on bail and in case he is enlarged on bail, 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. 11. Learned AGA and also Sri Ajay Nayak, 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. CRLR No. 340 of 2025 2 12. Thus, having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case including the age of the opposite party No.2, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. 13. The judgment and order dated 05.02.2025, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2025, which was preferred against the order dated 04.01.2025, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar, arising out of Case Crime No. 0517 of 2024, under Sections 64, 109 BNS, & Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Kotwali Akbarpur, District-Ambedkar Nagar. are hereby set aside. 14. Let Juvenile Of Case Crime No. 517/2024 Thru. His Natural Guardian Mother 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 she 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. 15. 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 2, 2025 Vinay/- CRLR No. 340 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench