Allahabad High Court
JUVENILE- AversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- PRASHANT MISHRA I
Holding
The refusal of bail was contrary to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, and the order denying bail was set aside, granting bail with conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a criminal revision filed by Juvenile "A" seeking to quash the Special Judge's order denying bail under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The revisionist argued that he is a juvenile entitled to bail unless reasonable grounds under Section 12 exist, which were absent. The State and another respondent contended that the juvenile had a prior criminal history and had caused grievous injury, seeking to deny bail. The Court examined whether the lower court's findings conflicted with the settled principle that gravity of offence alone cannot justify denial of bail for a juvenile. Finding no material to satisfy the grounds in Section 12, the Court set aside the order dated 12.01.2026 and granted bail with strict conditions, directing custody with his father and compliance with surety requirements.
Issues considered
- Whether the refusal of bail to a juvenile under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 is justified in the present case.
- Whether the gravity of the alleged offence or the juvenile's alleged criminal history can constitute reasonable grounds to deny bail.
- Whether the lower court's findings are consistent with the legal principles laid down in earlier judgments on bail for juveniles.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- juvenile justice
- bail
- Section 12
- criminal revision
- observation home
- grant of bail
- court order set aside
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1161 of 2026
Juvenile- A
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Virat Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Lalit Kumar Misra, G.A.
Court No. - 84
HON'BLE PRASHANT MISHRA-I, J.
1. Counter affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the Opposite
Party No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and they are taken on
record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for Opposite
Party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the judgment and
order 12.01.2026 passed by Special Judge, (POCSO Act)/Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Firozabad in Criminal Appeal No. 119 of
2025 (Juvenile "A" Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 312
of 2024 under Section 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station-
Linepar, District- Firozabad.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is a
juvenile and he has falsely been implicated in the case and there is no
likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with the
evidence in case of his release on bail. He next submitted that the FIR was
lodged after a considerable delay and the applicant had no motive for
committing offence as alleged in the FIR. The revisionist is in
Observation Home since 29.10.2024.
5. It is further submitted that the other three co-accused, namely, Bhola @
Krishna, Faili @ Ramnaresh and Rahul have been released on bail by Co-
ordinate Benches of this Court. The axe by which the alleged incident was
caused was recovered from the co-accused Bhola @ Krishna.
6. The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that it is not in
dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of
the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000 (here-in-after referred to as 'Juvenile Justice Act'). It has been
submitted that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act prayer for bail
of a juvenile can 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
CRLR No. 1161 of 2026
2
psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice'.
It has been submitted that no such grounds are available on record to deny
bail to the applicant.
7. This court is to see whether the opinion of the learned Trial Court
recorded in the impugned judgment and orders are in consonance with the
provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) stated as above.
8. It has been submitted that gravity of the offence is not relevant
consideration for refusing grant of bail to the juvenile as has been held by
this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010
(68) ACC 616(LB) and it has been a consistent view of various courts. It
has been submitted that there exists no material to justify rejection of bail
on the grounds envisaged by Section 12 of the Act.
9. On the other hand learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for
Opposite Party No. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer of the learned
counsel for the revisionist.
10. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that there is a
criminal history of five cases of the revisionist. Also, he has caused
grievous injuries to the father of the informant and after that he ran away.
11. Learned A.G.A. submitted that per the postmortem report the
deceased sustained seven lacerated wounds, two incised wounds and four
abrasions and cause of death is shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante
mortem injuries.
12. However, they could not demonstrate from the record that there
existed any of the grounds on which bail application of a juvenile could
be rejected keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile
Justice Act.
13. Also, no motive has been given in the FIR regarding the incident. The
alleged axe used for killing the deceased was said to have been recovered
from the co-accused, namely, Bhola @ Krishna. The other co-accused
persons, namely, Bhola @ Krishna, Faili @ Ramnaresh and Rahul have
been released on bail by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders
dated 29.08.2025, 01.12.2025 and 11.12.2025 respectively.
14. In view of the above, it appears that the findings recorded by the
learned Court below 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, those orders cannot be sustained.
15. In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The order dated
12.01.2026 in the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.
16. Let the applicant- Juvenile "A", involved in the aforesaid case
crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned
with the following conditions:
CRLR No. 1161 of 2026
3
(i) The applicant be given into custody of his father.
(ii)The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the
witnesses;
(iii) The applicant 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 an abuse of
liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;
(iv) The applicant through guardian shall remain present before the trial
Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(Prashant Mishra-I,J.)
May 12, 2026
Saurabh
Digitally signed by :-
SAURABH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…