# Sachin @ Sachin Bhartiya (Minor) Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 208
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1430 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sachin-sachin-bhartiya-minor-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48178
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Revision - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 452, 392, 364, 376D & 506 - The Protection of Children From
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 5G, 6
- The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 161 , 164 - Juvenile Justice (care
and protection of children ) Act , 2015 -
Section 18(1)(g) - maximum three years
institutional incarceration permissible for
a juvenile - juvenile has right to be
released
on
bail
where
a
similarly
circumstanced adult offender had been
extended that liberty . (Para - 17,25)

Revisionist applied for bail before Juvenile
Justice Board - rejected - preferred an appeal
under Section 101 of the Act - dismissed - filed
present criminal revision - revisionist already
undergone
half
of
the
imprisonment/
institutional incarceration - co-accused already
granted bail - revisionist have identical role.
(Para - 18,20,25)

HELD:-Once the co-accused has been admitted
to bail, who is adult, no justification to
additionally test the case of the revisionist with
reference to the requirements of the proviso to
sub Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Both
the
Courts
below
passed
the
impugned
judgment and orders in cursory manner without
placing due reliance on the report submitted by
the District Probation Officer. Impugned orders
cannot be sustained. Liable to be set aside and
reversed. Revisionist may be released on
bail.(Para - 25,28)

Criminal Revision allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
maintenance of the opposite parties no. 2
and 3, who are none other than the wife and
daughter of the revisionist, which shall
obviously be open to be revised when the
Family Court decides the Application under
Section 125 Cr. P. C. finally. The revisionist
himself has pleaded that he keeps on
visiting the opposite party no. 2 and pays
her the monthly expenses and he is
voluntarily paying Rs.19,631/- per month
to the opposite party no. 3. In such a factual
situation, no reasonable person of ordinary
prudence can accept that a person who is
voluntarily paying such amounts to his wife
and daughter, will be aggrieved by the
award of Rs.15,000/- each as interim
maintenance to his wife and daughter. The
amount of Rs.15,000/- per month each
awarded as interim maintenance to the
opposite parties no. 2 and 3 does not appear
to be suffering from any such illegality as
warrants an interference by this Court in
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

32. In view the aforesaid facts, I am
of the view that the impugned orders dated
13.08.2021 and 27.09.2021 passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad in
Case No.187 of 2020 do not suffer from
any illegality or infirmity. The revision
filed against the aforesaid orders lacks
merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2022)03ILR A208
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.02.2022 &
25.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1430 of 2021

Sachin @ Sachin Bhartiya (Minor)
 ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Yadavendra Dwivedi, Sri Dhirendra
Kumar Srivastava, Sri Hari Krishna Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Vineet Vikram, Sri Vinod Kumar
Pandey

(A) Criminal Law - Revision - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 452, 392, 364, 376D & 506 - The Protection of Children From
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 5G, 6
- The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 161 , 164 - Juvenile Justice (care
and protection of children ) Act , 2015 -
Section 18(1)(g) - maximum three years
institutional incarceration permissible for
a juvenile - juvenile has right to be
released
on
bail
where
a
similarly
circumstanced adult offender had been
extended that liberty . (Para - 17,25)

Revisionist applied for bail before Juvenile
Justice Board - rejected - preferred an appeal
under Section 101 of the Act - dismissed - filed
present criminal revision - revisionist already
undergone
half
of
the
imprisonment/
institutional incarceration - co-accused already
granted bail - revisionist have identical role.
(Para - 18,20,25)

HELD:-Once the co-accused has been admitted
to bail, who is adult, no justification to
additionally test the case of the revisionist with
reference to the requirements of the proviso to
sub Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Both
the
Courts
below
passed
the
impugned
judgment and orders in cursory manner without
placing due reliance on the report submitted by
the District Probation Officer. Impugned orders
cannot be sustained. Liable to be set aside and
reversed. Revisionist may be released on
bail.(Para - 25,28)

Criminal Revision allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Kamal Vs St. of Har., 2004 (13) SCC 526
3 All. Sachin @ Sachin Bhartiya (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
209
2. Takht Singh Vs St. of M.P., 2001 (10) SCC
463

3. Dharmendra (Juvenile) Vs St. of U.P. & ors. ,
2018 (7) ADJ 864

4. Japani Sahoo Vs Chandra Sekhar Mohanty,
(2007) 7 SCC 394

5. Shiv Kumar @ Sadhu Vs St. of U.P., 2010
(68) ACC 616(LB)

6. Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr., (2018) 3
SCC 22

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. List has been revised.

2. Despite notice issue to opposite
party No.2, which has been served
personally upon him, no one has put in
appearance on his behalf nor any counter
affidavit has been filed.

3. Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava,
Advocate assisted by Sri Hari Krishna
Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist
and Sri Vaibhav Aanad, learned A.G.A. for
the State are present.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that he may be permitted to correct
the date of the rejection order.

5. Sri Vaibhav Aanad, learned A.G.A.
has no objection to the prayer made by
learned counsel for the revisionist.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist
is directed to correct the date of rejection
order in the memo of application.

7. This revision is directed against
the judgment and order dated 01.03.2021
passed
by
Additional
District
and
Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO
Act,
Allahabad
dismissing
Criminal
Appeal No. 04 of 2021 ( C.N.R. No.
UPAD01-002208-2021)
(Sachin
@
Sachin Bhartiya Versus State of U.P.) and
affirming the orders dated 20.11.2020 and
15.01.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice
Board, Prayagraj refusing the bail plea to
the revisionist in Case No. 45 of 2020
(State Vs. Sachin @ Sachin Bhartiya),
arising out of Case Crime No. 01/2020,
under Sections 452, 392, 364, 376-D, 506
I.P.C. and Section 5G, 6 of the POCSO
Act, Police Station Bahariya, District
Allahabad.

8. Heard Sri Yadavendra Dwivedi,
learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri
Vaibhav Aanad, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record.

9. The prosecution case, as per the
version of the FIR is that when the
informant was getting threshed the heyricks, his daughter Km. Mahima aged
about 14 years, was alone in the house
and
finding
her
alone,
Sachin
Shivshankar, on 30.12.2019 at around
7.00 P.M. sneaked into his house and
stolen Rs. 10,000/- and anklet weighing
10 tolas, kept in the box and while his
daugher prevented them from doing so,
they gagged her mouth and their two
aides Krishna Kumar and Dharmendra
Kumar, who were waiting outside the
house, they all kidnapped her and
outraged her modesty and they all
threatened him that they would done him
to death and on 01.01.2020 at around
12.30 PM, they all barged into his house
threatened him.

10. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that the revisionist is
210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
innocent and he has been falsely implicated
in the present case.

11. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that the version of the F.I.R.
and the statement of the prosecutrix
demonstrates that there was consent of the
prosecutrix and she went along with the
revisionist and she was in love with the
revisionist but on the pressure of the family
members, who recovered the prosecutrix
and put pressure upon her, she changed her
statement.

12. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that the prosecutrix was
medically examined by the doctor of
District Women Hospital, Allahabad and
the X-ray of the prosecutrix was got
conducted wherein her age was opined to
about 18 years and as per medico legal
examination report, no violence was
observed by the doctor.

13. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that the evidence collected
by the Investigating Officr, the chain of the
incident
is
not
complete
and
the
prosecution itself failed to prove the
alleged place of incident.

14. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that there is contradiction in
the version of the FIR and statement of the
prosecutrix recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

15. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that the revisionist is minor,
whereas the victim is major and able to
understanding her well being.

16. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that the revisionist is
juvenile and there is no apprehension of
reasoned ground for believing that the
release of the revisionist is likely to bring
him in association with any known
criminals or expose him to mental, physical
or psychological danger or his release
would defeat the ends of justice. He further
submits that except this the revisionist has
no previous criminal history. The father of
the revisionist is giving his undertaking that
after release of the revisionist on bail, he
will keep him under his custody and look
after him properly. Further, the revisionist
undertakes that he will not tamper the
evidence and he will always cooperate the
trial proceedings. There was no report
regarding any previous antecedents of
family or background of the revisionist.
There is no chance of revisionist's reindulgence to bring him into association
with known criminals.

17. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that it is not in dispute that
the revisionist is a juvenile as he has
already been declared juvenile by Juvenile
Justice Board, Prayagraj vide order dated
31.01.2020. The revisionist was a juvenile
aged 16 years, 6 months and 27 days on the
date of occurrence. He is in jail since
05.01.2020 in connection with the present
crime and has completed more than half of
the sentence out of the maximum three
years institutional incarceration permissible
for a juvenile, under Section 18(1)(g) of the
Act. It is submitted with much emphasis
that co-accused Krishna Kumar, who is
adult and similarly circumstanced as the
revisionist, has been admitted to bail by
this Court vide order dated 18.08.2021
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No. 6371 of 2021. Learned counsel for the
revisionist further submits that the coaccused Dharmendra Kumar Saroj has also
been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court
3 All. Sachin @ Sachin Bhartiya (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
211
vide order dated 10.06.2021 passed in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2941
of 2020. It is argued that the revisionist
being a minor, cannot be held in
institutional incarceration any further once
co-accused, similarly circumstanced, has
been admitted to bail. Further submission is
that the case of the revisionist is not on
worse footing than that of the co-accused,
therefore on principles of parity also the
revisionist be released on bail.

18. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further
submits
that
thereafter
the
revisionist applied for bail before the
Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj upon
which a report from the District Probation
Officer was called for. The bail application
was rejected vide order dated 20.11.2020
and 15.01.2021, being aggrieved, the
revisionist preferred an appeal under
Section 101 of the Act, which was also
dismissed vide order dated 01.03.2021.
Hence the present criminal revision has
been filed before this Hon'ble Court mainly
on the following amongst other grounds:

(i) That the bail application of the
revisionist was rejected by the court below in
a very cursory and arbitrary manner.

(ii) That the revisionist, who is
juvenile, is wholly innocent and has been
falsely implicated by the first informant in the
present case.

(iii) That the courts below have not
appreciated the report of the District
Probation Officer in its right perspective.

(iv) That the impugned judgment
and orders passed by the learned courts
below are apparently illegal, contrary to law
and based on erroneous assumption of facts
and law.

(v) That there was absolutely no
material on record to hold that the release of
the Juvenile would likely to bring him into
association with any known criminal or
expose
him
to
moral,
physical
or
psychological danger or his release would
defeat the ends of justice, yet the courts below
have illegally, arbitrary and on surmises
refused the bail of juvenile.

(vi) That the courts have erred in
law in not considering the true import of
Section 12 of the Act, 2015 and thus, the
impugned orders passed by the courts below
suffer from manifest error of law apparent on
the face of record.

(vii) That the courts below have
acted quite illegally and with material
irregularity in not properly considering the
case of juvenile in proper and correct
perspective which makes the impugned
orders passed by the courts below non est
and bad in law.

(viii) That bare perusal of the
impugned orders demonstrate that the same
have been passed on flimsy grounds which
have occasioned gross miscarriage of justice.

19. Several other submissions in order
to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations
made against the revisionist have also been
placed
forth before
the
Court. The
circumstances which, according to the
counsel, led to the false implication of the
accused have also been touched upon at
length. It has been assured on behalf of the
revisionist that he is ready to cooperate
with the process of law and shall faithfully
make himself available before the court
whenever required and is also ready to
accept all the conditions which the Court
may deem fit to impose upon him. It has
also been pointed out that in the wake of
heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there
is no likelihood of any early conclusion of
trial.

20. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has further argued that the revisionist has
212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
already
undergone
half
of
the
imprisonment/institutional
incarceration
and has placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex
Court judgment in the case of Kamal Vs.
State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 and
submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was
pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the
judgment as under :-

"2. This is a case in which the
appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of
the India Penal Code and sentenced to
imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that
so far the appellant has undergone
imprisonment for about 2 years and four
months. The High Court declined to grant
bail pending disposal of the appeal before
it. We are of the view that the bail should
have been granted by the High Court,
especially having regard to the fact that the
appellant has already served a substantial
period
of
the
sentence.
In
the
circumstances, we direct that the bail be
granted to the appellant on conditions as
may be imposed by the District and
Sessions Judge, Faridabad."

21. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has also placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex
Court judgment in the case of Takht Singh
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10)
SCC 463, and submitted that the Hon'ble
Apex Court was pleased to observe in
paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under:-

"2. The appellants have been
convicted under Section 302/149, Indian
Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge
and have been sentenced to imprisonment
for life. Against the said conviction and
sentence their appeal to the High Court is
pending. Before the High Court application
for suspension of sentence and bail was
filed but the High Court rejected that
prayer
indicating
therein
that
the
applicants can renew their prayer for bail
after one year. After the expiry of one year
the second application was filed but the
same has been rejected by the impugned
order. It is submitted that the appellants are
already in jail for over 3 years and 3
months. There is no possibility of early
hearing of the appeal in the High Court. In
the aforesaid circumstances the applicants
be released on bail to the satisfaction of the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

22. Learned AGA has opposed the
revisionist's case with the submission that
the release of the revisionist on bail would
bring him into association of some known
criminals, besides, exposing him to moral,
physical and psychological danger. It is
submitted that his release would defeat the
ends of justice, considering that he is
involved in a heinous offence.

23. Learned counsel for the revisionist
thereafter filed the rejoinder affidavit and
has denied the averments made in the
counter affidavit and has reiterated the
grounds mentioned in the revision.

23.

This
Court
has
carefully
considered the rival submissions of the
parties and perused the impugned orders.
The juvenile is clearly is about 16 years of
age and does not fall into that special
category of a juvenile between the age of
16 and 18 years whose case may be viewed
differently, in case, they are found to be of
a
mature
mind
and
persons
well
understanding the consequences of their
actions. The provisions relating to bail for a
juvenile are carried in Section 12 of the
Act, which reads as under:

"(1) When any person, who is
apparently a child and is alleged to have
3 All. Sachin @ Sachin Bhartiya (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
213
committed a bailable or non-bailable
offence, is apprehended or detained by the
police or appears or brought before a
Board, such person shall, notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other
law for the time being in force, be released
on bail with or without surety or placed
under the supervision of a probation officer
or under the care of any fit person:

Provided that such person shall
not be so released if there appears
reasonable grounds for believing that the
release is likely to bring that person into
association with any known criminal or
expose the said person to moral, physical
or psychological danger or the person's
release would defeat the ends of justice,
and the Board shall record the reasons for
denying the bail and circumstances that led
to such a decision.

(2) When such person having
been apprehended is not released on bail
under subsection (1) by the officer-incharge of the police station, such officer
shall cause the person to be kept only in an
observation home in such manner as may
be prescribed until the person can be
brought before a Board.

(3) When such person is not
released on bail under sub-section (1) by
the Board, it shall make an order sending
him to an observation home or a place of
safety, as the case may be, for such period
during the pendency of the inquiry
regarding the person, as may be specified
in the order.

(4) When a child in conflict with
law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail
order within seven days of the bail order, such
child shall be produced before the Board for
modification of the conditions of bail."

25. This Court has, in particular,
looked into the role of the various accused
and finds that the aforesaid co-accused who
has already been granted bail by this Court,
and the revisionist have identical role. Once
the aforesaid co-accused has been admitted
to bail, who is adult, there seems no
justification to additionally test the case of
the revisionist with reference to the
requirements of the proviso to sub Section
(1) of Section 12 of the Act. In this
connection, I had occasion to consider the
question about the right of a juvenile to be
released
on
bail
where
a
similarly
circumstanced adult offender had been
extended that liberty. In the case of
Dharmendra (Juvenile) vs. State of U.P.
and others, [2018 (7) ADJ 864], the High
Court was pleased to observe as under:

"10. The matter can be looked at
from
another
vantage.
In
case
the
revisionist were an adult and stood charged
of the offence that he faces with a weak
circumstantial evidence of last seen and
confession to the police, in all probability,
it would have entitled him to bail pending
trial. If on the kind of evidence forthcoming
an adult would be entitled to bail, denying
bail to a child in conflict with law may be
denying the juvenile/ child in conflict with
law
the
equal
protection
of
laws
guaranteed under Article 14 of the
Constitution.

11. The rule in Section 12(1) of
the Act is in favour of bail always to a
juvenile/ child in conflict with law except
when the case falls into one or the other
categories denial contemplated by the
proviso. It is not the rule about bail in
Section 12 of the Act that in case a child in
conflict with law is brought before the
Board or Court, his case is not to be seen
on merits prima facie about his complicity
at all for the purpose granting him bail;
and all that has been done is to see if his
case falls is one or the other exceptions,
214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
where he can be denied bail. The rule in
Section 12 sanctioning bail universally to
every child in conflict with law presupposes
that there is a prima facie case against him
in the assessment of the Board or the Court
based on the evidence placed at that stage.
It is where a case against a child in conflict
with law is prima facie made out that the
rule in Section 12(1) of the Act that
sanctions bail as a rule, except the three
categories contemplated by the proviso
comes into play. It is certainly not the rule,
and, in the opinion of the Court cannot be
so, that a case on materials and evidence
collected not being made out against a
child at all, his case has to be tested on the
three parameters where bail may be denied
presuming that a prima facie case is
constructively there. Thus, it would always
have to be seen whether a case prima facie
on merits against a child in conflict with
law is there on the basis of material
produced by the prosecution against him. If
it is found that a prima facie case on the
basis
of
material
produced
by
the
prosecution is there that would have led to
a denial of a bail to an adult offender, in
that case also the Rule in Section 12(1) of
the Act mandates that bail is to be granted
to a juvenile/ child in conflict with law
except where his case falls into any of the
three disentitling categories contemplated
by the proviso.

12. In the opinion of this Court,
therefore, the perception that merits of the
case on the basis of prima facie evidence is
absolutely irrelevant to a juvenile's bail
plea under the Act would not be in
conformity with the law. The catena of
decisions that speak about merits of the
case or the charge against a juvenile being
irrelevant, proceed on facts and not an
assumption that a case on merits is made
out, and, not where the case is not at all
made out prima facie. It is not that a child
alleged to be in conflict with law against
whom there is not iota of evidence to
connect him to the crime would still have
bail denied to him because his case may be
placed
in
or
the
other
disentitling
categories under the proviso to Section
12(1) of the Act. If this kind of a
construction were to be adopted it might
expose the provisions of Section 12(1) of
the Act to challenge on ground of violating
the guarantee of equal protection of laws
enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
It is an enduring principle that a
construction that lends a statute to
challenge about its constitutionality should
be eschewed and one that saves and
upholds its vires is to be adopted. In this
context the guidance of their Lordships of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Japani
Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty,
(2007) 7 SCC 394 may be referred to:-

"51. The matter can be looked at
from different angle also. Once it is
accepted (and there is no dispute about it)
that it is not within the domain of the
complainant or prosecuting agency to take
cognizance of an offence or to issue process
and the only thing the former can do is to
file a complaint or initiate proceedings in
accordance with law. If that action of
initiation of proceedings has been taken
within the period of limitation, the
complainant is not responsible for any
delay on the part of the Court or
Magistrate in issuing process or taking
cognizance of an offence. Now, if he is
sought to be penalized because of the
omission, default or inaction on the part of
the Court or Magistrate, the provision of
law may have to be tested on the
touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution.
It can possibly be urged that such a
provision is totally arbitrary, irrational and
unreasonable. It is settled law that a Court
of Law would interpret a provision which
3 All. Sachin @ Sachin Bhartiya (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
215
would help sustaining the validity of law by
applying
the
doctrine
of
reasonable
construction
rather
than
making
it
vulnerable
and
unconstitutional
by
adopting rule of 'litera legis'. Connecting
the provision of limitation in Section 468 of
the Code with issuing of process or taking
of cognizance by the Court may make it
unsustainable and ultra vires Article 14 of
the Constitution."

26. This Court in the case of Shiv
Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010
(68) ACC 616(LB) was pleased to observe
that the gravity of the offence is not
relevant consideration for refusing grant of
bail to the juvenile.

27. In the present case there appears
to be no distinguishing feature from the
case of the said co-accused, who is adult
offender circumstanced identically as the
revisionist. There is no justification to hold
the revisionist not entitled to the liberty of
bail. It is also taken note of by this Court
that the revisionist has by now done more
than half of institutional incarceration. The
maximum period for which a juvenile can
be incarcerated in whatever form of
detention, is three years, going by the
provisions of Section 18(1)(g) of the Act.
Both the courts below have passed the
impugned judgment and orders in cursory
manner without placing due reliance on the
report submitted by the District Probation
Officer as well as facts and circumstances
of the case. This Court, thus, finds that the
impugned orders cannot be sustained and
are liable to be set aside and reversed.

28. After perusing the record in the
light of the submissions made at the bar
and after taking an overall view of all the
facts and circumstances of this case, the
nature of evidence, the period of detention
already undergone, the unlikelihood of
early conclusion of trial and also in the
absence of any convincing material to
indicate the possibility of tampering with
the evidence and in view of the larger
mandate
of
the Article
21
of
the
Constitution of India and the dictum of
Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh
vs. State of UP and another, (2018) 3
SCC 22 and the view taken by the Hon'ble
Court in the cases of Kamal Vs. State of
Haryana (supra), Takht Singh Vs. State
of
Madhya
Pradesh
(supra),
Dharmendra (Juvenile) vs. State of U.P.
and others (supra), Japani Sahoo vs.
Chandra Sekhar Mohanty (supra) and
Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P.
(supra), this Court is of the view that the
present criminal revision may be allowed
and the revisionist may be released on bail.

29. In the result, this revision
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
judgment and order dated 01.03.2021
passed by Additional District and Sessions
Judge/Special
Judge,
POCSO
Act,
Allahabad and the orders dated 20.11.2020
and 15.01.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice
Board, Prayagraj are hereby set aside and
reversed. The bail application of the
revisionist stands allowed.

30. Let the revisionist, Sachin @
Sachin Bhartiya through his natural
guardian/father Nand Lal be released on
bail in Case No. 45 of 2020 (State Vs.
Sachin @ Sachin Bhartiya), arising out of
Case Crime No. 01/2020, under Sections
452, 392, 364, 376-D, 506 I.P.C. and
Section 5G, 6 of the POCSO Act, Police
Station Bahariya, District Allahabad upon
his natural guardian/father Nand Lal
furnishing a personal bond with two
solvent sureties of his relatives each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the
216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj subject to
the following conditions:

(i) That the natural guardian/father,
Nand Lal of the revisionist 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 allowed to be exposed to any
moral, physical or psychological danger and
further that the natural guardian will ensure
that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.

(ii) The revisionist and his father
Nand Lal will report to the District Probation
Officer on the first Wednesday of every
calendar month commencing with the first
Wednesday of April, 2022 and if during any
calendar month the first Wednesday falls on a
holiday, then on the next following working
day.

(iii) 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 may determine.

(iv) The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad or the certified copy issued by the
Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(v) The computer generated copy
of such order shall be self attested by the
counsel of the party concerned.

(vi)
The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of such computerized copy of the
order from the official website of High Court
Allahabad and shall make a declaration of
such verification in writing.

31. However, considering the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, the court
below is directed to make every possible
endeavour to conclude the trial of the
aforesaid case within a period of four months
from today without granting unnecessary
adjournments to either of the parties.

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

(In Re : Criminal Misc. Correction
Application No. 9 of 2022)

1. Heard Shri Hari Krishna Singh, the
learned counsel for the revisionist, the learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This application has been filed on
behalf of revisionist seeking correction in the
order dated 21.02.2022 passed by this Court.

3. The correction application is allowed.

4. In the third line of second paragraph
on the first page of the order dated
21.02.2022 the word, 'nor any' be readover
as 'although' and after the word, 'counter
affidavit has been filed', the word, 'by Shri
Vinod Kumar Pandey, Advocate' be
readover.
----------

(2022)03ILR A216
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2223 of 2016

Hari Om ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Surendra Kumar Tripathi, Sri Arvind
Kumar Dixit