Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:17333 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2236 of 2023 Revisionist :- Juvenile Offender Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajai Kumar Srivastava,Ajay Pandey,Arjun Singh Yadav,Govind Prasad Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dhirendra Babu Mishra,G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. Sri Dhirendra Babu Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 is not present even when the matter has been taken up in the revised list. 3. The present revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred by the revisionist-X Juvenile against the order dated 23.3.2023 passed by Juvenile Court/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kaushambi in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2023 Juvenile Offender ABCJU through guardian Rajrani Vs. State of U.P. and others as well as bail rejection order dated 14.2.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Kaushambi in State Vs. ABCJU in (Case Crime No.412 of 2022) u/s 376(3), 504, 506, 313 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)v, 3(2)va, 3(1) dha SC/ST Act, P.S. Karari, District Kaushambi. 4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 25.12.2022 against the revisionist by Rajaram with the allegation that since the last one year the revisionist was establishing physical relationship with his daughter aged about 14 years. His daughter when became pregnant for about 5 months then she informed the revisionist about it and asked him to marry her otherwise she will suffer serious disrepute and then the revisionist told about it in his family. The revisionist then called his daughter to his house and on 20.12.2022 the revisionist, Chedi Lal and Ram Prasad threatened her and administered some medicine to her due to which on 24.12.2022 she suffered an abortion. When she aborted the said pregnancy then the first informant came to know about the incident and he was told about it. The report be lodged and action be taken. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the revisionist is a juvenile. There is nothing adverse in the report of the D.P.R.O against the revisionist. It is submitted that the occurrence in the present case is alleged to have taken place on 24.12.2022 but the victim was examined medically on 26.12.2022. It is submitted that the revisionist has no criminal history, para 26 of the affidavit in support of present revision has been placed before the Court. The revisionist is under custody in juvenile jail. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made in the present revision and argued that the prosecution story is corroborated by the medical evidence inasmuch as the victim was opined by the C.M.O concerned to be aged about 14-15 years and as such was a minor. The ultrasound report opines of abortion. The incident is serious in nature and looking to the involvement of the revisionist, he is named in the FIR, in the statement of the victim u/s 161 Cr.P.C and 164 Cr.P.C. and also the medical evidence, the incident is grave in nature. The revisionist was of such an age that he was mentally alert and was conscious of the act he was doing. The prayer for bail be rejected. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the revisionist is named in the FIR, in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. The victim has named the revisionist as a person who established physical relationship with her and she became pregnant because of it. Her pregnancy was got aborted because of administering some medicine by the revisionist on threat. The medical evidence corroborates prosecution story. The incident is such which cannot be said that the revisionist was not knowing of the act as he is doing, its consequences and also the gravity of the incident. 8. In view of the above, the present revision is hereby rejected. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Gaurav Kuls Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad