Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12897 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2558 of 2023 Revisionist :- Juvenile -X Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajay Kumar Giri,Rahul,Rakesh Singh,Ravish Kumar Singh,Sandeep Pandey,Surendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Virpratap Singh Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Sandeep Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-1 for the State and perused the material on record. Sri Vir Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the first informant/opposite party no.5 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 (Minor) against the order dated 17.4.2023, passed by Presiding Officer/Higher Judicial Services, Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2023 as well as impugned judgement and order dated 27.1.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Hamirpur in Special Case No.229 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.338/2022, u/s 328, 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Section 4 POCSO Act and 67 I.T. Act, Police Station Jariya, District Hamirpur for granting bail to the revisionist. 4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 24.09.2022 by Shivhari against the revisionist alleging therein that his daughter aged about 17 years is a student of B.SC Ist year. In July, 2022 his daughter was alone in the house wherein the revisionist came and offered some intoxicating drinks which was consumed by her and then she was raped and her objectionable photograph was clicked. When she regained consciousness, said photograph was shown to her and stated that if she makes complaint to anyone, said photograph would be made viral. On 18.09.2022, the revisionist made said photograph viral, when he came to know about the same, he lodged the present FIR. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the revisionist is a minor. He was aged about 16 years and 11 months at the time of incident. The FIR is vague inasmuch as the exact date and time of the alleged incident is not mentioned therein but only the vague assertion has been made that the incident had taken place in July, 2022. Even otherwise the said FIR has been lodged on 24.9.2022 which is after an unexplained delay of about two months. It is argued that the victim is stated to be aged about 17 years old and by giving benefit of variation of two years, she would be a major. Although the Investigating Officer was given some photographs by the first informant from his mobile which were got printed and made part of the investigation but there is no evidence whatsoever regarding the source from where they were circulated. It is argued that there is no evidence whatsoever that the revisionist had made some photographs of the victim viral. It is argued that the report of the District Probation Officer does not in any manner go against the revisionist. It is argued that the revisionist has no criminal history. It is argued that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted on 23.11.2022. Hence revisionist be thus granted bail and present revision deserves to be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and arguments as argued. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the incident in the present matter is alleged to have been taken in July, 2022. The exact date and time of the incident is missing in the prosecution story. The FIR has been lodged on 24.9.2022 which is after about two months of the same. There is no explanation regarding the delay in lodging of the FIR. The source of circulation of the alleged photograph of the victim is not disclosed during investigation. 8. The present revision is allowed. The impugned judgement and order dated 17.4.2023, passed by Presiding Officer/Higher Judicial Services, Hamirpur and the impugned judgement and order dated 27.1.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Hamirpur in the aforesaid case are hereby set aside. The bail application of the revisionist is allowed. 9. Let the revisionist X (Minor) through his natural guardian/father be released on bail in aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, concerned, 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 :- 24.1.2025 Gaurav Kuls Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad