HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 379 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Counter affidavit filed today by learned A.G.A. is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Shri Arvind Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed 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 17.03.2025, passed by the Children Court, Bahraich in Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2025 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 05.03.2025, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bahraich in Misc. Bail Application No.11/12A of 2025 (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.296 of 2024, under Sections 69, 351(3) B.N.S. & Section 5(j)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Risiya, District- Bahraich. 4. It is stated that indiputably when the physical relations were established with the prosecutrix/victim, as per story of the prosecution, the revisionist and victim both were minor/adolescence age and due to that relationship the prosecutrix/victim got pregnant and delivered a child, who died subsequently. 5. It is further stated that on account of the fact that the revisionist was in Mumbay for his livelihood, the revisionist, as per promise, could not solemnize marriage within the reasonable time with prosecutrix/victim and, Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pawan Kumar Mishra Master X , Juvenile , In Case Crime No. 296/2024, Thru. His Father And Natural Guardian .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) therefore, the FIR was lodged and in connection with the said FIR the revisionist is in jail. 6. It is further stated that the revisionist was not aware that the prosecutrix/victim was minor as, from her appearance she looked like major. 7. It is also submitted that at the relevant point of time, according to school records, the revisionist was about 17 years and 4 months. 8. Based upon the supplementary affidavit of father/natural guardian of the revisionist, it is further stated that the revisionist would solemnize marriage with the prosecutrix/victim. 9. It is lastly stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 19.11.2024, i.e. about nine months, which has not been opposed by the side opposite, and as per Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015 (subject to other provisions of the Act including Section 21 of the Act 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. 10. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA, 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 do not dispute the above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist. 11. Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that (i) the period of incarceration, i.e. about nine months, (ii) testimony of the prosecutrix/victim recorded in terms of Sections 180 and 183 of B.N.S.S., prima facie, from which it appears that there was relationship between the revisionist and prosecutrix/victim, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. 12. The impugned judgment and order dated 17.03.2025, passed by the Children Court, Bahraich in Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2025 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 05.03.2025, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, CRLR No. 379 of 2025 2 Bahraich in Misc. Bail Application No.11/12A of 2025 (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.296 of 2024, under Sections 69, 351(3) B.N.S. & Section 5(j)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Risiya, District- Bahraich are set aside. 13. 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 his counsel, after releasing the revisionist shall solemnize the marriage with the prosecutrix/victim, failing which, the order of bail granted to Juvenile may be cancelled. 14. 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. August 29, 2025 Anand/- CRLR No. 379 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench