HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1250 of 2025 Court No. - 27 HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revision, learned AGA for the respondent no.1 State and perused the record. 2. Instant criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 29.09.2015, passed by the learned Children Court, Ayodhya, in Criminal Appeal No. (Juvenile) 68 of 2025, and the order dated 29.08.2025, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad, in Case Crime No.38 of 2025, under Sections 105, 191(2), 115(2), and 351(3), BNS, Police Station - Kotwali, Bikapur, District Ayodhya, by means of which the court below has dismissed the criminal appeal. 3. Learned Counsel for the revisionists submits that the revisionists are falsely implicated in the case. They have been declared as juveniles in conflict of law by the Juvenile Justice Board, but their bail applications have been dismissed by order dated 29.05.2025. 4. According to the prosecution's version, the incident occurred on Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shobh Nath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Juvenile X Thru. Natural Gaurdian And Another .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 20.02.2025 at around 9:00 PM the younger son of the informant, Ragvendra Tiwari while returning from attending a feast from adjoining village along with witnesses Sulabh Tiwari and Suraj Pandey, the revisionists belled him and attacked him and hurled bricks and stones at him and also assaulted him with lathi and Danda. They left the place of incident and under impression that he had died. The injured was admitted to the hospital in Medical College, Darshan Nagar, Ayodhya, where a surgical operation was conducted on his brain, but he died during treatment. 5. The counsel for revisionists next submitted that the co-accused Ram Sagar Maurya has been enlarged on bail in this case by order dated 27.06.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5753 of 2025. Although that accused was not named in the FIR. Another accused Tamir Ahmad @ Siblu, who is named in the FIR along with the revisionists, has also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 16.05.2025, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4223 of 2025. 6. He next submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the revisionists in the offense. The postmortem examination report of the deceased mentions stitches over the scalp and, on the right side of the forehead, a scab of size 3 cm x 1.5 cm over the left side of the forehead, a part of the tempral bone was missing and the loosening of epidermis over left buttock was found. The cause of death has been shown as cardiogenic shock, as a result of ante-mortem myocardial infarction. 7. Learned Counsel for the revisionists submits that the the revisionists are innocent and learned court below has wrongly rejected the prayer of CRLR No. 1250 of 2025 2 their bail without considering the statutory provisions regarding the grant of bail to the revisionists (juvenile). 8. He further further submitted that in social investigation report submitted by District Probation Officer, nothing adverse has been reported against them. They are not having prior criminal history. Their case does not come within the purview of grounds mentioned in Section 18 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for refusal of bail to the Juvenile. 9. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail made in present revision on behalf of the revisionists through father and submitted the revisionists are real brothers. However, he does not dispute the other submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionists which are based on record. 10. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that identically situated co-accused, namely, Ram Sahai, has already been enlarged on bail; the appellant is not named in the first information report and there seems to be no cogent piece of evidence so as to connect the present appellant, coupled with the facts that he is languishing in jail since 13.11.2021. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find it to be a fit case for bail. 11. Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of both the side and the facts that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence the revision has substance and it is accordingly allowed and the order dated CRLR No. 1250 of 2025 3 29.09.2015, passed by the learned Children Court, Ayodhya, in Criminal Appeal No. (Juvenile) 68 of 2025, and the order dated 29.08.2025, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad, in Case Crime No.38 of 2025, under Sections 105, 191(2), 115(2), and 351(3), BNS, Police Station - Kotwali, Bikapur, District Ayodhya are set aside. 12. Let the revisionists no.1 and 2, namely, Juvenile X and Juvenile Y involved in the aforementioned case crime be released on bail, on his guardian furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- 1. The revisionists (juvenile) will not tamper with the evidence. 2. The revisionists (juvenile) will not indulge in any criminal activity. 3. The revisionists (juvenile) will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial. 4. The revisionists (juvenile) will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless their personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned. December 1, 2025 KR CRLR No. 1250 of 2025 4 (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench