DEEPAK Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears that name of the revisionist-juvenile has been disclosed in the memo of revision. This fault from the side of revisionist escaped detection by the Registry. The concerned Officer of the Registry is directed to delete the name of the revisionist-minor from the title of the revision as fed and shown in the data on website and represent him as "Minor 'X' Through His Natural Guardian Father Arjun Singh".

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the private respondents and perused the record.

(3.) This criminal revision under Sec. 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, has been filed on behalf of the minor 'X' through his natural guardian/father Arjun Singh s/o Mohan singh, R/o VillageGokulpur, Police Station Nidhauli Kalan, District Etah with the prayer to admit the minor on bail alongwith the prayer to set aside the order dtd. 15/11/2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Etah and order dtd. 20/1/2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Etah in Criminal Appeal No.48 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No.26 of 2019 under Sec. 376- D, 354, 506, 452, 306 IPC and 4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Nidhauli Kalan, District- Etah by which the criminal appeal No.48 of 2021 was rejected.