HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 508 of 2025 Court No. - 27 HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. (Crl. Misc. Application No.1/25-Delay Condonation Application) 1. This criminal revision is reported to be beyond time by 27 days. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has filed the application for condonation of delay in filing this criminal revision supported by an affidavit. 3. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State does not have any objection if the application for condonation of delay is allowed. 4. I have perused the contents of the affidavit filed along with the application for condonation of delay in filing this criminal revision. 5. I find that the delay in filing this criminal revision has been sufficiently explained. 6. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is hereby allowed and the delay in filing the criminal revision is hereby condoned. 7. The office is directed to allot a regular number to this criminal revision. Order on Memo of Revision. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Satendra Nath Rai Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Juvenile Delinquent 'F' Thru. His Real Brother- In-Law And Guardian .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 1. Heard Shri Satendra Nath Rai, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 2. The captioned criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Baord, Gonda in Case No.244 of 2025, State vs. Faiz Ahmad, arising out of Case Crime No.135 of 2024 registered under Sections 394, 411, 341, 506, 120-B & 504 I.P.C and section 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Motiganj, District-Gonda, whereby the application for bail filed by the revisionist had been rejected. The revisionist through this criminal revision has also challenged the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Gonda, whereby the appeal preferred by the revisionist, against the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda, had been dismissed. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that in Case Crime No.135 of 2024 registered under Sections 394, 411, 341, 506, 120-B & 504 I.P.C and section 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Motiganj, District-Gonda, there are six accused, out of which the revisionist and one Shaurya Kashyap @ Harsu are juvenile and the Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda vide order dated 18.09.2024 had granted bail to Shaurya Kashyap @ Harsu but at the same time the bail application filed by the revisionist had been rejected, though the role assigned to both the juveniles, in the crime in question, is identical. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has opposed this criminal revision. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda itself had granted bail vide order dated 18.09.2024 to one co-accused, juvenile Shaurya Kashyap @ Harsu, but while considering the bail application filed by the revisionist, without assigning any specific reason in respect of the revisionist's role in crime in question, had rejected his bail application. I further find that once in respect of a juvenile whose role is identical to that of the CRLRD No. 508 of 2025 2 revisionist, the Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda itself had granted bail, there is no occasion for the Board to deny bail to the revisionist. 6. This Court also takes note of the fact that in respect of other co- accused, who are not juvenile, this Court had granted bail vide orders dated 09.12.2024 & 04.02.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.12387 of 2024 and 1002 of 2025 respectively. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the revisionist is also entitled for bail. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Baord, Gonda in Case No.244 of 2024, State vs. Faiz Ahmad, registered under Sections 394, 411, 341, 506, 120-B & 504 I.P.C and section 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station-Motiganj, District-Gonda, and the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Gonda, in Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2025, Faiz Ahmad vs. State, are hereby set aside. 9. The Juvenile Justice Board/competent court is hereby directed to release the revisionist-Faiz Ahmad on bail, on furnishing two sureties and a personal bond to its satisfaction with the following conditions:- (i.) The revisionist shall cooperate in 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. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. October 7, 2025 akhilesh/- CRLRD No. 508 of 2025 3 (Manjive Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- AKHILESHWAR KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- AKHILESHWAR KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench