Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35020 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2599 of 2023 Revisionist :- X- Juvenile Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Lalit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rahul Kumar Sharma Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Lalit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. Sri Rahul Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is not present even in the revised list. 4. 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 judgement and order dated 04.04.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mathura in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2023 (Juvenile (A) vs. State of U.P. & another) and order dated 10.03.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Mathura in Misc. Case No.101 of 2023 (State vs. "A" son of Mukesh) arising out of Case Crime No. 398 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Baldev, District Mathura whereby the bail application of the revisionist has been rejected by the court below. 5. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 15.09.2022 by Subedar Singh against the revisionist and Smt. Rachana alleging therein that his younger son Manvendra alias Manvesh was married to Archana. Smt. Rachana was previously married to one Sonu. On 09/10.04.2022, Manvendra alias Manvesh and Rachana were sleeping in other house, in the night at about 1:00 A.M., Rachana reached to him and told him that Manvendra alias Manvesh has been electrocuted and he is lying on the flour, on which, he and other persons reached there and found him to be unconscious. He was taken to various hospitals but subsequently he died while reaching to city centre. He was disturbed and had kept his mobile in the box. After about 15 days, his grand son took out his mobile and was trying to bring it to a working condition, on which a recording got opened wherein, it was heard that Rachana was talking to some one, who told her that if a person is electrocuted for 10 minutes, he would die. Later on, Rachana eloped with the revisionist. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that during investigation, the statement of Smt. Rachana was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein, she disclosed the name of the revisionist and stated his implication in the present matter. It is further submitted that the same is inadmissible evidence. It is submitted that there is no credible evidence against the revisionist. It is argued that the revisionist has no criminal history as stated in paragraph 22 of the affidavit. It is further submitted that the revisionist is in jail since 24.02.2023. It is further submitted that the revisionist is a juvenile and was aged about 16 years 10 months 29 days at the time of occurrence. It is further submitted that the present revision be allowed and the revisionist be released on bail. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the revisionist was having some relationship with Smt. Rachana, which was the reason for his being involved in the matter. 8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the implication of the revisionist in the present matter is on suspicion. The statement of co-accused although names and implicates revisionist but the same is inadmissible. The revisionist is a juvenile and has no criminal history. 9. The present revision is allowed. The impugned judgement and order dated 04.04.2023, passed by Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mathura and the impugned order dated 10.03.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Mathura in the aforesaid case are hereby set aside. The bail application of the revisionist is allowed. 10. Let the revisionist (X Juvenile) through his natural guardian/father Mukesh be released on bail in Misc. Case No.101 of 2023 (State vs. "A" son of Mukesh) arising out of Case Crime No. 398 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Baldev, District Mathura on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Mathura, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the natural guardian/father will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known criminal or be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the juvenile will not repeat the offence. (ii) that the guardian/father will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juvenile will be placed in a school and encouraged to his studies and not allow to waste his time in unproductive and mere recreational pursuits. (iii) The revisionist and his father will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Monday of every month with effect from the first Monday of the month next after release from custody, and, if during any calendar month the first Monday falls on a holiday then on the following working day. (iv) The District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the revisionist and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board concerned on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board determines. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Manoj Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad