Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:7409 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4627 of 2024 Revisionist :- Juvenile X Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Yakub Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Yakub Ali, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-1 for the State and perused the material on record. 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 22.8.2024, passed by District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kushinagar @ Padrauna in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2024 (X through his legal guardian/mother Vs. State and another) arising out of case crime no.1010 of 2023 u/s 302, 201, 34 IPC, P.S. Kasya, District Kushi Nagar as well as order dated 18.06.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Kushinagar at Padrauna whereby the court of District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) has rejected the said criminal appeal which is preferred against the impugned order passed by Juvenile Justice Board, concerned. 4. Notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 vide order dated 11.09.2024. As per office report dated 16.10.2024, notice has been served upon the opposite party no.2 personally but no one appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 despite service of notice. 5. Counter affidavit dated 29.11.2024 has been filed by the State which is already on record. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that he does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit. The court thus proceeds to hear the matter by invoking the principles of non traverse. 7. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 17.12.2023 by Shamsad Ahmad against unknown person alleging therein that he, his wife and children were sleeping in the house. In the night of 16.12.2023 in the adjacent room his son Momtaj was sleeping. On 17.12.2023 at about 9 a.m. he received an information that the dead-body of his son Momtaj with head separated is lying in the river. He went there and identified it as that of his son. Some unknown persons have murdered his son and thrown the dead-body in the river. The FIR be thus lodged. The first informant gave the same statement during investigation and further added that his daughter used to talk with Ishak Ali due to which his son Momtaj had beaten his daughter after which she has stopped talking to him and as such Ishak Ali was having enmity with him and has murdered his son. 8. 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. It is argued that the implication of the revisionist has surfaced in the matter during investigation and the only evidence against him is disclosure of his name in the confessional statement of co-accused Ishak Ali and Irfan. It is argued that the same is inadmissible in evidence. Subsequently the police has recorded the confessional statement of the revisionist which has also been relied. It is argued that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted. It is argued that there is no recovery of any incriminating material either from the possession of the revisionist or on his pointing out. The revisionist has no criminal history, para 29 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. The revisionist is in jail since 20.12.2023. Hence present revision deserves to be allowed. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and arguments as aforesaid. 10. 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. The implication of the revisionist in the matter is during investigation in the confessional statement of two co- accused. There is no recovery of any incriminating article from the possession of the revisionist or on his pointing out. 11. The present revision is allowed. The impugned judgement and order dated 22.8.2024, passed by District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kushinagar @ Padrauna and the impugned judgement and order dated 18.06.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Kushinagar at Padrauna in the aforesaid case are hereby set aside. The bail application of the revisionist is allowed. 12. Let the revisionist X (juvenile) through his natural guardian/mother 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/mother 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/mother 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 mother 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 :- 16.1.2025 Gaurav Kuls Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad