Allahabad High Court
JUVENILE SversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- JAI PRAKASH TIWARI
Holding
The bail denial was erroneous; the orders of the Special Judge and Juvenile Justice Board are set aside and bail is granted to the juvenile.
Summary
The High Court considered a criminal revision filed by Juvenile S, a 16‑year‑old accused under the POCSO Act, seeking to quash the bail denial order of the Special Judge and the Juvenile Justice Board. The revisionist argued that the juvenile was falsely implicated, had no criminal history, the victim was a consenting adult, and none of the grounds under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 applied. The State contended that the allegations were true and the bail rejection was proper. The Court examined whether the findings of the lower courts complied with Section 12, which permits bail denial only if release would associate the juvenile with known criminals, expose him to danger, or defeat the ends of justice. Finding no such grounds and noting the undue length of confinement, the Court set aside the impugned orders and granted bail with strict conditions. The revision was allowed, and the juvenile was released on personal bond and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the bail denial under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was justified in the present case.
- Whether the juvenile's prolonged confinement violates the statutory time‑frame for trial under the Act.
- Whether the consent of the adult victim negates the applicability of the POCSO provisions.
- Whether the orders of the Special Judge and Juvenile Justice Board can be quashed on the ground of non‑compliance with the Act.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- juvenile justice
- bail
- Section 12
- POCSO
- revision
- consent
- child observation home
- undue delay
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1532 of 2026
Juvenile S
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ajitam Srivastav, Ravi Prakash
Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 84
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.
As per office report dated 03.04.2026, notice has been served on opposite
party no.2, but no one has turned up to opposed this revision.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated
04.02.2026 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act/ Additional Sessions
Judge, Farrukhabad in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2026 (Juvenile 'S' vs.
State of U.P.) and the order dated 5.1.2026 passed by the Juvenile Justice
Board, Farrukhabad in Bail Application No. 3132 of 2025 arising out of
Case Crime No. 311 of 2025 under Section 64(1), 352, 351(3) BNS and
Sessions 3/4, 5L/6 POCSO Act and 67 I.T. Act, Police Station Kaimganj,
District Farrukhabad.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits:
(i) admittedly, the applicant was a juvenile aged about 16 years, 06
months and 09 days on the date of alleged incident; He is in juvenile
home since 3.12.2025;
(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;
CRLR No. 1532 of 2026
2
(iv) victim was aged about 18 years and she knew the revisionist for the
last three years;
(v) victim was consenting party;
(vi) there is no criminal history of the applicant;
(vii) there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;
(viii) the revisionist has remained confined in the child observation home
for an unduly long period of time;
(ix) 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.
(x) therefore, the impugned orders have been assailed as erroneous and
contrary to law.
Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the present criminal
revision. 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 revision may be dismissed.
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'.
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:-
CRLR No. 1532 of 2026
3
(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?
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.
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. The
impugned orders are hereby set aside.
In view of the observations made above, the present criminal revision is
allowed. Let the revisionist Juvenile S through his father/ natural
guardian Rajesh 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 revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the
witnesses;
(ii) The revisionist 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
CRLR No. 1532 of 2026
4
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 revisionist through guardian shall remain present before the trial
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.
Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate the order to the Child
Observation Home concerned within a week.
(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
April 20, 2026
KK Patel
Digitally signed by :-
KRISHN KANT PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…