HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 802 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the private opposite parties despite service of notice, as appears from order dated 12.09.2025. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In these circumstances and also taking note of the order of this Court dated 12.09.2025, which says "It is made clear that on the next date of listing, the case would not be adjourned on account of non-appearance of the opposite parties and it would be heard and decided on merits", the Court proceeded to hear the instant bail appeal on merits. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, 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 04.07.2025, passed by the Juvenile Court/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Pratapgarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2025, which was preferred against the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 07 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 416 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 64(2)M, 65(1) of BNS, Section 5L,6 of POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(5), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, 1989, Police Station- Lalganj, District- Pratapgarh. 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 further stated that if the story of prosecution is taken on its face value even in that eventuality, taking note of spirit of Section 12, Section Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shyam Singh, Gyan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Juvenile 'S' Thru. Natural Guardian His Father .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015 and also the period of incarceration since 24.10.2024 of revisionist aged about 15 years, 08 month and 15 days at the time of incident and also the punishment which could be awarded to a juvenile under Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015 read with other provisions including Section 21 of the Act of 2015, the revisionist is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the bail. It is not a relevant factor while considering to grant bail to the juvenile. It has been so held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB). It has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions of this court. 6. It is also stated that a perusal of the prosecution case would indicate that both the revisionist and the victim, who according to medical opinion was aged about 18 years, were adolescent and victim accompanied the revisionist on her own volition and medical evidence does not support the allegations levelled against the revisionist. 7. Taking note of aforesaid aspect of the case, 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. 8. 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 that the age of the revisionist and taking note of the spirit of Section 12, Section 18(1)(g) of the Act of 2015 as also the period of incarceration i.e. about one year, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. 10. The judgment and order dated 04.07.2025, passed by the Juvenile Court/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Pratapgarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2025, which was preferred against the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 07 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 416 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 64(2)M, 65(1) of BNS, Section 5L,6 of POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)(5), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, 1989, Police Station- Lalganj, District- Pratapgarh, are hereby set aside. 11. Let Juvenile 'S' Thru. Natural Guardian His Father of aforesaid Case Crime Number be enlarged on bail, in the above mentioned case on executing a personal bond by his natural guardian with two reliable CRLR No. 802 of 2025 2 sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court/Board concerned and on submission of undertaking on affidavit by his natural guardian 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 her 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. September 18, 2025 Mohit Singh/- CRLR No. 802 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench