Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31939 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2268 of 2024 Revisionist :- X- Juvenile Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Abhishek Mayank,Rajesh Kumar Yadav,Sharique Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri S.K. Upadhyay, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on records. 3. Vide order dated 22.8.2024, notice was issued to the opposite party no.2. As per the office report a report regarding service of notice has been received. The report dated 15.7.2024 of the C.M.M. Kanpur Nagar is on record which states that notice has been served on the opposite party no.2. Despite service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that in compliance of the last order dated 13.12.2024 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, he has filed a supplementary affidavit dated 14.12.2024 and places paragraph 3 of the same and submits that the order dated 16.04.2024 passed by the Addl. Special Court POCSO Act/Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Kanpur Nagar and the order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Nagar, has not been challenged before this Court. 5. 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 16.04.2024 passed by Addl. Special Court POCSO Act/Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2024 (UPKN010035662024), Juvenile in Conflict with Law Vs. State of U.P. and another, and also against the judgement and order dated 1.4.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Nagar in Case Crime No.22 of 2024, u/s 147, 353, 336, 308, 326 IPC, P.S. Kakadeo, District Kanpur Nagar whereby the bail application of the revisionist has been rejected by both the courts. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the revisionist is not named in the FIR as FIR has been lodged naming Rohit Shukla as the accused along with 10-15 unknown persons. It is argued that the co-accused Rohit Shukla has been granted bail vide order dated 7.5.2024 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.15239 of 2024, copy of the said order has been produced by learned counsel for the revisionist, the same is taken on record. It is argued that co- accused Sahil Srivastava has also been granted bail vide order dated 7.3.2024 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9269 of 2024. It is further argued that co-accused Raj Gautam has also been granted bail vide order dated 18.3.2024 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8942 of 2024, copies of the bail granting orders of co-accused Raj Gautam and Sahil Srivastava are annexed as annexure no.14 to the affidavit filed in support of present revision. The co-accused Sahil Srivasta and Raj Gautam are not named in the FIR. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution case. While placing para no.51 of the affidavit in support of present revision, it is argued that there is no recovery of any incriminating articles either from the possession of the revisionist or at his pointing out. It is argued that the revisionist has no criminal history, para 40 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. The revisionist is in jail since 31.1.2024. Hence present revision deserves to be allowed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and arguments. 8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the revisionist is a juvenile. He is not named in the FIR. Identically placed co-accused Sahil Srivastava and Raj Gautam have been granted bail by coordinate Benches of this Court. Co-accused Rohit Shukla who was arrested from the spot has also been granted bail. 9. The present revision is allowed. The impugned judgement and order dated 16.04.2024 passed by Addl. Special Court POCSO Act/Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Kanpur Nagar and the impugned judgement and order dated 1.4.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Nagar in the aforesaid case are hereby set aside. The bail application of the revisionist is allowed. 10. Let the revisionist (X) 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 :- 5.3.2025 Gaurav Kuls Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad