JUVENILE XversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                     CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8846 of 2026

Juvenile X
                                                                   .....Appellant(s)
                                       Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)           : Narendra Kumar,             Sushil     Kumar
                                     Kushwaha
Counsel for Respondent(s)          : G.A.

Court No. - 91
                    HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State of
U.P. and perused the record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 101(5) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred by the appellant with a prayer to set aside
the judgement and order dated 11.08.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge
(POCSO Act), Kasganj in Bail Application -No. 1083 of 2026 (Juvenile X Vs. State),
arising out of Case Crime No.81/2026, under Sections 70(2), 127(2), 352, 351(3) of
BNS and Section 5g/6(1) of POCSO Act, Police Station Soron, District Kasganj.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that;

(i) the applicant/appellant was a juvenile aged about 17 years on the date of
alleged incident and he is in jail since 11.03.2021.

(ii) the applicant has been falsely implicated;

(iii) there is no specific or strong objection raised in the DPO report, other
than the general and vague observations;

(iv) there is no criminal history of the applicant;

(v) there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;

(vi) the appellant has remained confined in the child observation home for an
unduly long period of time;
                                                            CRLA No. 8846 of 2026
                                  2


(vii) none of the grounds contemplated under section 12 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to
as the Act) are available, to deny the bail to the applicant.

(viii) therefore, the impugned orders have been assailed as erroneous and
contrary to law.

(ix) co-accused Pushpendra has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 25.08.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.26874 of 2026 (Pushpendra Versus State of U.P. and 3
others).

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the present criminal
appeal. It is submitted, the incident reported is true and it is wrong to say
that the allegations made against the applicant are false, and/are motivated.
Also, reliance has been placed on the findings recorded in the bail rejection
orders to submit that the instant appeal may be dismissed.

5. It is not in dispute that the applicant is a juvenile and is entitled to the
benefits of the provisions of the Act. Under Section 12 of the Act, the prayer
for bail of a juvenile may be rejected 'if there appear reasonable grounds for
believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into
association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice'.

6. The court has to see whether the opinion of the learned appellate Court as
well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and
orders are in consonance with the provision of the Act. Section 12 of the Act
lays down three contingencies in which bail may be refused to a juvenile
offender. These are:-

(i) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known
criminal, or

(ii) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or

(iii) that his release would defeat the ends of justice?

7. Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the
                                                            CRLA No. 8846 of 2026
                                  3


bail. It is not a relevant factor while considering to grant bail to the juvenile.
It has been so held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of
U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB). It has been consistently followed in
subsequent decisions of this court.

Thus, it remains largely undisputed that the applicant - was a juvenile on the
date of occurrence; does not appear to be prone to criminal proclivity or
criminal psychology, in light of the observations of the D.P.O; does not have
a criminal history; has been in confinement for an unduly long period of
time, in as much as the trial has not concluded within time frame
contemplated by the Act. Even otherwise, there does not appear to exist any
factor or circumstance mentioned in section 12 of the Act as may disentitle
the applicant to grant of bail, at this stage. The father of the applicant
undertakes to address the statutory concerns expressed in Section 12 of the
Act, as to the safety and well being of the applicant, upon his release.

8. In view of the above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned
Court concerned are in conflict with the settled principle in law, for the
purpose of grant of bail and are erroneous and contrary to the law laid down
by this court. Consequently, the order cannot be sustained. The impugned
order dated 11.08.2026 is hereby set aside.

9. In view of the observations made above, the present criminal appeal is
allowed. Let the appellant, Juvenile X, involved in the aforesaid case crime
be released on bail, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two
sureties each of like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with
the following conditions:

(i) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the
witnesses;

(ii) The appellant through guardian shall file an undertaking to the effect that
he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the
witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be
open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders
in accordance with law;

(iii) The appellant through guardian shall remain present before the trial
                                                                                             CRLA No. 8846 of 2026
                                                                    4


                                    Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of
                                    his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against
                                    him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code/269 B.N.S.S.

                                    10. Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate the order to the Child
                                    Observation Home concerned within a week.

                                    September 30, 2026
                                    PS

                                                                                          (Tej Pratap Tiwari,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
POOJA SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad