HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1209 of 2025 Court No. - 27 HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Paritosh Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 2. The captioned criminal revision has been filed assailing therein, the judgement and order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ayodhya in Misc Case No. 130/2025, arising out of Case Crime No.112 of 2025 registered under Sections 131, 351(3) B.N.S.,2023 and Section 5g/6 of P.O.C.S.O Act, Police Station Raunahi, District Ayodhya, whereby the application for grant of bail filed by the revisionist had been rejected. The revisionist through this criminal revision has also challenged the order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the Children Court, Ayodhya, in Criminal Appeal (Juvenile) No.44 of 2025, whereby the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board had been upheld. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that in the First Information Report, lodged in respect of the crime in question, the father of the victim had stated that three children including revisionist caught hold of the victim and one Alok Kumar committed offence punishable under Section 377 I.P.C. It has further been contended that the victim has not suffered any injury and there is no medical evidence to support that any offence punishable under Section 377 I.P.C. has taken place. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the victim on the date of incident was aged about 13 years and all the four accused are juvenile, therefore, had it been a case of the offence punishable under Section 377 I.P.C., then the victim must have suffered few injuries and there must have been medical evidence to support the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Sukh Deo Singh, Paritosh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Juvenile X Thru. His Mother .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) case for offence punishable under Section 377 I.P.C. but there is neither any injury to the victim nor there is any medical evidence to support the case of prosecution. It has thus been argued that the revisionist being juvenile is entitled to be released on bail during trial. 5. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the criminal revision. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and I find that the allegation in the prosecution story is that four juvenile were involved in the case and three of them caught hold of the victim and fourth one committed an offence punishable under Section 377 I.P.C. but there is no injury to the victim nor there is any medical evidence to support the case of prosecution in respect of offence committed under Section 377 I.P.C. 7. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the revisionist is entitled for being enlarged on bail during trial. 8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ayodhya and the order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the Children Court, Ayodhya, are hereby set-aside. 9. The competent court/Juvenile Justice Board, Ayodhya is hereby directed to enlarge the revisionist on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing two sureties and a personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned 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 28, 2025 Renu/- CRLR No. 1209 of 2025 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench