Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47371 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 962 of 2024 Revisionist :- Juvenile Delinquent X Thru. His Mother Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sudhakar Mishra,Ghulam Mohammad Kamil,Ramakar Shukla,Shrddha Srivastava,Zoheb Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Case called out. The opposite party no.2/complainant chose not to appear before this Court to oppose the instant revision despite service of notice, as appears from Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit of State. Learned A.G.A. is present in the Court. In these circumstances, this Court proceeded to hear the instant revision, which relates to enlargement of revisionist on bail, on merits. 3. Heard Shri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, 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 30.07.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.12, Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2024 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate of U.P. and another), which was preferred against the order dated 03.05.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur in Bail Application under Section 12 of Act of 2015 (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor) arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.314 of 2023, under Sections 363, 302, 201, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Baldirai, 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 protective home/jail since 11.01.2024 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. 7. It is further stated that co-accused namely Parashuram Tiwari @ Sudhir Tiwari and two other juvenile have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 20.06.2024, 16.12.2024 and 18.12.2024 passed in Bail Application No.6386 of 2024 and Revision Nos.99 of 2024 and 547 of 2024 respectively, copies of which are annexed as Annexure No.SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today. 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 A.G.A., 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 co-accused- Parashuram Tiwari @ Sudhir Tiwari and two other juvenile have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 20.06.2024, 16.12.2024 and 18.12.2024 passed in Bail Application No.6386 of 2024 and Revision Nos.99 of 2024 and 547 of 2024, respectively, as also the report of the Probation Officer which finds favour of the revisionist, and the fact that the revisionist, having no criminal history, is in protective home/jail since 11.01.2024, I find force in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. 10. The impugned judgment and order dated 30.07.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.12, Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2024 (X Minor Juvenile Delinquent Vs. Sate of U.P. and another), which was preferred against the order dated 03.05.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur in Bail Application under Section 12 of Act of 2015 (State of U.P. Vs. X Minor) arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.314 of 2023, under Sections 363, 302, 201, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Baldirai, District- Sultanpur are set aside. 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 mother/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 mother that she 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. Order Date :- 13.8.2025/Anand/- Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench