HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5093 of 2024 Court No. - 47 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A for the State. Despite service of notice on respondent nos. 2 and 4 no one has turned up to oppose this revision. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.07.2024 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act / Juvenile Judge, Bareilly in Criminal Juvenile Appeal No. 12 of 2024 and the judgment and order dated 29.09.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly in Case Crime No. 490 of 2023, under Sections- 363, 366, 376(2n)/ 376(3) IPC and Section 4(2) and 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Faridpur, District- Bareilly whereby the court below has refused to permit the prayer of revisionist to go with her friend, Dilshad Khan son of Bundan Khan. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly has rejected the prayer of the revisionist on the ground that, as per the certificate of Class IX, her age at the time of the incident was 14 years and 8 months, and therefore, she was directed to be detained by the Child Welfare Committee at the Government Women Protection Home. The Appellate Court has also held accordingly and hence the revision. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that in view of Section 94(2)(i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the mark-sheet of Class IX was not admissible in evidence for determination of age. It is further submitted that the ossification test of the revisionist, Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Nitesh Patel, Udit Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. X-Victim Minor .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. & 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) conducted in terms of sub-clause (iii) of the aforesaid section, indicated her age to be about 18 years on 27.09.2023. It is submitted that the revisionist has now admittedly attained the age of more than 20 years and, therefore, she is entitled to be released from the Protection Home and, being a major, she is free to go and live with her friend family members or anyone of her choice. The contention raised by the counsel for the revisionist appears to be correct. Accordingly, the impugned orders are hereby quashed. The criminal revision stands allowed. The Child Welfare Committee, Bareilly is directed to permit the revisionist to go with her friend family members or anyone as per her own sweet will, being major and capable of understanding the consequences of her decision. Let the lower court record be returned to the trial court forthwith. September 9, 2025 Rohit CRLR No. 5093 of 2024 2 (Siddharth,J.) Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad