AJAY KUMAR SINGH @ BABLOO SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. CIVIL SECTT. LUCKNOW AND ANOTHER
CRLR/399/2022 · 2025-08-28
Saurabh Lavania
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 130311 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 130311 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 399 of 2022 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
1. 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 12.04.2022, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Gonda (in short "Appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2021 (Aditya Kumar Vs. Sate of U.P.), whereby, the Appellate Court after considering the facts of the case including the report of District Probation Officer (D.P.O.), enlarged the opposite party No. 2 on bail, who at that relevant point of time, was in jail for a period of two years.
2. Today, when the case was called out, Sri Kailash Nath Mishra, Advocate, who appeared for the revisionist, says that he does not want to press this revision and it may be dismissed as not pressed.
3. Sri Rama Pati Shukla, Advocate, who appeared for the opposite party No. 2, submitted that the instant revision was filed on the ground that bail to co-accused namely Pushpendra Singh and Uday Pratap Singh was declined by the Appellate Court and these accused have already been released on bail by this Court.
4. The fact that co-accused namely Pushpendra Singh and Uday Pratap Singh have already been enlarged on bail by this Court has not been disputed by Sri Kailash Nath Mishra, Advocate, who appeared for the revisionist.
5. Moreover, there is not fact/evidence available on record based upon which it can be inferred that accused-opposite party No. 2 has misused the liberty of bail granted by the Appellate Court vide order impugned dated 12.04.2022.
6. Taking note of the aforesaid, the instant revision is dismissed as not pressed. August 28, 2025 Arun/- Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rahul Mishra, Kailash Nath Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rama Pati Shukla (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Ajay Kumar Singh @ Babloo Singh .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lucknow And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench