HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 687 of 2024 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Pradeep Rastogi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State 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 25.04.2024, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2024 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 13.03.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in Misc. Case No.41 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.33/2024, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Gosaiganj, District- Lucknow. 3. 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. 4. It is further stated that the statement of the victim has already been recorded before the Juvenile Court and as such there is no possibility of influencing the main witness of fact. 5. It is also sated that the victim has already been declared hostile during trial and did not support the prosecution story. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Mohd. Ghayasuddin Khan, Samrat Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pradeep Rastogi A (Juvenile) Thru. Natural Guardian Father .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 6. It is further submitted that the chances of conviction of revisionist are extremely bleak as victim is a hostile witness and the medical evidence as the medical examination was denied by the victim, which could support the case of prosecution. 7. It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 22.01.2024, i.e. about one year and seven 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. 8. 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 he has not disputed the above submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist. 9. Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that (i) the statement of the victim has already been recorded before the Juvenile Court and as such there is no possibility of influencing the main witness of fact, (ii) the victim was declared hostile during trial and did not support the prosecution story, (iii) the medical examination was denied by the victim, (iv) period of incarceration, i.e. about one year and seven months, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. 10. The impugned judgment and order dated 25.04.2024, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2024 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate of U.P. and others), which was preferred against the order dated 13.03.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in Misc. Case No.41 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.33/2024, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Gosaiganj, District- Lucknow are set aside. CRLR No. 687 of 2024 2 11. 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, failing which, the order of bail granted to Juvenile may be cancelled. 12. 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 28, 2025 Anand/- CRLR No. 687 of 2024 3 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench