Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48577 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 919 of 2024 Revisionist :- Revisionist Is Minor A Thru. His Natural Guardian Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Saurabh Tiwari,Deepanjali Singh,Dileep Kumar Tiwari,Md.Khurshed Ahmad,Rahul Srivastava,Subham Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. It is to be noted that service of notice upon opposite party No. 2/complainant is sufficient, as appears from Office Report dated 09.09.2024, however, when the case was called out, no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2/complainant to oppose the instant bail revision. It is also relevant to note here that victim of the case has not been impleaded in the instant revision. Learned AGA is present in the Court. 2. Taking note of the aforesaid and also the fact that service of notice upon opposite party No. 2 is sufficient and also that informant and victim of the case have already been declared hostile by the trial court, this Court proceeded to hear the instant bail revision on merits. 3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. 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 05.07.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2024 and the order dated 18.05.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur in Case Crime No.57/2024, under Sections 363, 366A, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Sultanpur. 5. 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. 6. It is further stated that the revisionist, a juvenile, is languishing in jail since 15.02.2024 and he is having no criminal history, which has not been opposed by the side opposite, and as per Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 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 on this ground alone. 7. It is further stated that the statements of main witnesses of fact i.e. informant and victim have already been recorded before the Juvenile Court and the Juvenile Court has declared them as hostile witnesses and therefore, permission was granted to the prosecution to cross-examine them but nothing could be elicited against the revisionist in cross-examination also. Reference in this regard has been made to the statements of informant and victim annexed as Annexure Nos. SA-1 and SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 01.07.2025 filed on behalf of the revisionist. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Thus having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. 11. The impugned judgment and order dated 05.07.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2024 and the order dated 18.05.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur in Case Crime No.57/2024, under Sections 363, 366A, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Sultanpur, are hereby set aside. 12. Let Juvenile 'A', 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. 13. 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. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Arun/- Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench