HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1170 of 2025 Court No. - 27 HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Ms. Saumya Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 2. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record. 3. In the counter affidavit, it had categorically been stated that information regarding pendency of this criminal revision had been given to Opposite Party No. 2 through the police station concerned. In spite of information having been provided to Opposite Party No. 2, no one is present on his behalf. 4. The captioned criminal revision has been filed assailing therein, the order dated 05.08.2025 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli in Miscellaneous Case No. 53 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 154 of 2025, registered under Sections 64(1), 308(2) B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3/4 P.O.C.S.O. Act, 2012 in Police Station - Dalmau, District - Raebareli, whereby the application for bail filed by the revisionist (juvenile) had been rejected. The revisionist through this criminal revision has also challenged the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, P.O.C.S.O. Act (exclusive) First, Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2025, whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist had been dismissed and the order of the Juvenile Justice Board had been affirmed. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Amit Srivastava, Abhishek Chaubey, Km. Saumya Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. X Minor, Son Of Y .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 5. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that allegation against him in the F.I.R. is that he initially raped the victim and made its videograph and thereafter, he started blackmailing the victim and thereby, he had fetched huge amount of money and jewellery. It has further been contended that the allegations leveled in the F.I.R. on its face, are absolutely false, as in the F.I.R. it had come that initially victim called the revisionist to her house and she entered in physical relationship with the revisionist. The videograph, which finds mention in the F.I.R., has not been recovered till date and has also not been made part of the case diary therefore, the entire prosecution story, on its face, does not inspire confidence. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the victim was a consenting party and when ultimately, relationship of the revisionist with the victim was revealed to parents of the victim, then the entire prosecution story has been prepared and the F.I.R. had been lodged. It has also been informed that the revisionist, in connection to the criminal case in question, is in judicial custody since 01.07.2025. It has also been pointed out that there is no criminal history of the revisionist. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has opposed this criminal revision. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that in absence of the alleged video, the entire prosecution story narrated in the F.I.R., does not inspire confidence. I further find that in the F.I.R. it had been stated that it was the victim who called the revisionist to her house and develop physical relationship with him but thereafter, the revisionist prepared a videograph and started blackmailing the victim. Once, the Investigating Officer has neither recovered any such video nor has made it part of the case diary, there is hardly any occasion for the prosecution to prove the revisionist guilty for the offences in question. 9. This Court finds that the revisionist is in judicial custody since 01.07.2025 and does not have any criminal history. 10. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this CRLR No. 1170 of 2025 2 Court is of the opinion that this revision deserves to be allowed. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision is allowed. 12. The order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Raebareli and the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, P.O.C.S.O. Act (exclusive) First, Raebareli, are hereby set aside. 13. A direction is issued to the Juvenile Justice Board / trial court / competent court to enlarge the revisionist on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The revisionist shall cooperate in the early disposal of the case without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (ii) The revisionist shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. 14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. November 7, 2025 Lokesh Kumar CRLR No. 1170 of 2025 3 (Manjive Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench