M JUVENILEversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

                                     1

                                                         Neutral Citation
                                                         No. -
                                                         2026:AHC:195028




         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3446 of 2026

M Juvenile
                                                         …..Revisionist(s)

                                 Versus

State of U.P. and another
                                                      …..Opposite Party(s)


Counsel for Revisionist(s)                 Meraj Ahmad Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)              G.A.


 Court No. - 77

             HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.



 1.    Heard Sri Meraj Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist,
 Sri A.K. Rai, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material
 available on record.

  2.    The Present Criminal Revision has been preferred by the revisionist
  through his father under Section 102 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and
  Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "JJ Act,
  2015") against the judgment dated 16.5.2026 passed by Special Judge
  (POCSO Act), Court No. 1, Moradabad in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of
  2026, whereby the appellate court affirmed the order dated 10.3.2026
  passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Moradabad, whereby bail application of
  the present Juvenile has been rejected under Section 12 of "JJ Act, 2015"
  in Case Crime No. 1184 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 191(3),
  190, B.N.S., Police Station- Majhola, District- Moradabad.

 3.    Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is
 innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior
                                     2

motive. The revisionist was 17 years, 4 months and 4 days old at the time
of the incident. As per educational certificate, the Juvenile Justice Board
declared the revisionist as juvenile vide order dated 30.1.2026 and no
proceeding is pending against the order. It is further submitted that the
F.I.R. dated 9.12.2025 with regard to incident dated 8.12.2025 has been
lodged against 7 named and 6-7 unknown persons. Injury No. 4 is related
to entry wound of fire arm present on the back of right side of chest and
other injuries are related to lacerated wound and abraded contusion on
eyebrow, nose and upper abdomen. The revisionist is in protective custody
in an observation home since 13.12.2025.

4.     It is further submitted that the finding recorded by the court below is
against the social information report and is based on surmises and
conjectures. It has been further submitted that there is no evidence to show
that if the revisionist is released on bail, his release 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. No such findings were recorded as to how he will come in
contact with known criminals and how he will be exposed to moral,
physical, or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the ends
of justice.

5.     Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the
revisionist has no criminal antecedent to his credit except the present
case and is not a previous convict nor is he associated with any kind of
unsocial or criminal activities. There is no report regarding any previous
criminal antecedents of the family of the revisionist. The natural
guardian/father of the revisionist has given an undertaking that if the
revisionist is released on bail, he will keep him in his custody and look
after him properly and has assured on behalf of the juvenile that he is
ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make the
juvenile available before the court whenever required and is also ready
to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit.

6.     It has been further submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board as
well as the Appellate Court have not appreciated the Social Information
                                      3

Report of the Probation Officer in its right perspective and passed the
impugned judgment and order in a cursory manner without considering
the position of law and have declined bail to the revisionist. The bare
perusal of the impugned orders demonstrates that the same has been
passed on flimsy grounds, which have occasioned a gross miscarriage of
justice. The judgment and order passed by the learned court below are
illegal, contrary to law, and is based on the erroneous assumption of
facts and law.

7.    Per contra; learned A.G.A. for the State defended the impugned
judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court as well as the Juvenile
Justice Board and contended that the revisionist has committed a heinous
crime. Considering the gravity of the offence, the present criminal
revision is liable to be dismissed.

8.    I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
material on record.

9.    The bail application under Section 12 of "JJ Act, 2015" has been
rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 10.3.2026
observing that there appears a reasonable ground for believing that the
guardian of the juvenile has no effective control over the revisionist and
there is a possibility of re-occurrence of the offence after his release.
Furthermore, he has committed the heinous offence and indulged in this
activity due to lack of discipline. The appellate court has also affirmed
the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. The appellate court
without considering the social information report of the Probation
Officer in its right perspective as well as without returning any finding
on the three exceptions declined the bail to the revisionist and rejected
the appeal after observing that the parents of the juvenile are unable to
keep the juvenile under control. There is a lack of availability of a
consultant and if the juvenile is released on bail, he is likely to go into
association with known criminals.
                                      4

10.   To examine the validity of the impugned order, it is useful to note
the relevant provisions of the Act as well as the case laws relating to the
subject.

11.   It is a settled position of law that the use of the word 'shall' in sub-
section (1) of Section 12 of "JJ Act, 2015" is of great significance. The
use of the word 'shall' raises a presumption that the particular provision
is imperative, but this prima facie inference may be rebutted by other
considerations such as the object and scope of the enactment and the
consequences flowing from such construction. The word 'shall' has been
construed as ordinarily mandatory, but is sometimes not so interpreted if
the context or intention otherwise demands.

12.   Provisions of Section 12 of "JJ Act, 2015" manifest that ordinarily,
the Juvenile Justice Board is under obligation to release the juvenile on
bail with or without surety. The juvenile shall not be released in certain
circumstances as the latter part of the section also uses the word 'shall'
imposing certain mandatory conditions prohibiting the release of the
juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board. If there are any reasonable
grounds for believing; (a) that the release is likely to bring him into
association with any known criminal; (b) that release is likely to expose
him to moral, physical, or psychological danger and (c) that release of
the juvenile is in conflict with law and would defeat the ends of justice.

13.   From a bare reading of the provisions of Section 12 of "JJ Act,
2015", it appears that the intention of the legislature is to grant bail to the
juvenile irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence alleged to
have been committed by the juvenile, and bail can be declined only in
such cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the release
is likely to bring the juvenile into association of any known criminal or
expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or that his
release would defeat the ends of justice. The gravity of the offence is not
a relevant consideration for declining the bail to the juvenile. A juvenile
can be denied the concession of bail if any of the three contingencies
specified under Section 12(1) of "JJ Act, 2015" is available. A similar
                                              5

view has been taken in cases of Manoj Singh v. State of Rajasthan1, Lal
Chand v. State of Rajasthan2, Prakash v. State of Rajasthan3, Udaibhan
Singh @ Bablu Singh v. State of Rajasthan4, Shiv Kumar @ Sadhu v.
State of U.P.5, Maroof v. State of U.P.6.

14.     The term 'known criminal' has not been defined in "the Juvenile
Justice Act" or Rules framed thereunder. It is a well-settled rule of
interpretation that in the absence of any statutory definition of any term
used in any particular statute the same must be assigned meaning as in
commonly understood in the context of such statute as held by Supreme
Court in Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 9 SCC 721 in para
11 as under: (SCC p. 726 para 11)

          "11......It is well settled principle of interpretation of statute that if
          the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or
          transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with
          that trade, business or transaction knows or understand to have a
          particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as
          having that particular meaning. [See: Union of India v. Garware
          Nylons Ltd., (1996) 10 SCC 413: AIR 1996 SC 3509 and
          Chemical and Fibers of India v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC
          664: AIR 1997 SC 558]..."

15.     In Nand Kishore (in JC) v. State (2006) 4 RCR (Cri.) 754, Delhi
High Court, while considering the first condition of proviso of Section
12 of Juvenile Justice Act, observed that "as regards the first exception,
before it can be invoked to deny bail to a juvenile there must be a
reasonable ground for believing that his release is likely to bring him
into association with any known criminal. The expression known
criminal is not without significance when the liberty of a juvenile is
sought to be curtailed by employing the exception, the exception must be
construed strictly. Therefore, before this exception is invoked, the
prosecution must identify the 'known criminal', and then the court must
have reasonable grounds to believe that the juvenile if released would

1. 2004 (2) RCC 995
2. 2006 (1) RCC 167
3. 2006 (2) RCR (Cri.) 530
4. 2005 (4) Crimes 649
5. 2010 (68) ACC 616 (LB)
6. 2015 (6) ADJ 203
                                          6

associate with this 'known criminal'. It cannot be generally observed that
the release of the juvenile would bring him into association with
criminals without identifying the criminals and without returning a
prima facie finding with regard to the nexus between the juvenile and
such criminal."

16.    Similar view has been taken in Manmohan Singh v. State of
Punjab, PLR (2004) 136 P & H 497 wherein, it was observed as under:

        "7....The reasonable grounds for believing that his release is likely
        to bring 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, should be based upon some
        material/evidence available on the record. It is not a matter of
        subjective satisfaction but while declining bail to the juvenile on
        the said ground, there must be objective assessment of the
        reasonable grounds that the release of the juvenile is likely to
        bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him
        to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release
        would defeat the ends of justice...

        8. In Sanjay Kumar's case (supra) it has been held by the
        Allahabad High Court that every juvenile whatever offence he is
        charged with, shall be released on bail but he may, however, be
        refused bail if there appears reasonable ground for believing that
        the release is likely to bring him into association with the any
        known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological
        danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice and that
        the existence of such ground should not be mere guess work of
        court but it should be substantiated by some evidence on record."

17.    Section 26 of the IPC defines the expression "Reason to believe".
It means a person is said to have a "reason to believe" a thing, if he has
sufficient cause to believe such thing but not otherwise. In view of
Section 26 of I.P.C., if there is sufficient cause to believe, reason to
believe exists. The expression "reason to believe" excludes a mere
suspicion. The word 'believe' is very much a stronger word than
'suspect'.
                                      7

18.   Section 13(1)(ii) of "JJ Act, 2015" provides that the Probation
Officer shall submit a social investigation report within two weeks from
when a child is apprehended or brought to the Board, containing
information regarding the antecedents and family background of the
child and other material circumstances likely to be of assistance to the
Board for making the inquiry. The "social investigation report" which
has been defined in Rule 2(xvii) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, means the report of a child
containing detailed information pertaining to the circumstances of the
child, the situation of the child on economic, social, psycho-social and
other relevant factors, and the recommendation thereon. This report
becomes important for the inquiry to be done by the Board while passing
such orders in relation to such a child as it deems fit under Sections 17
and 18 of this Act. The purpose behind this provision is to enable the
Juvenile Justice Board to get a glimpse of the social circumstances of the
child before any order regarding bail or of any other nature is passed.

19.   'Form-6' of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Model Rules, 2016, contains a detailed proforma of the social
investigation report. The report has three parts; the first part requires the
Probation Officer to give the data or information regarding the close
relatives in the family, delinquency records of the family, social and
economic status, ethical code of the family, attitude towards religion, the
relationship amongst the family members, the relationship with the
parents, living conditions, etc. Thereafter, the report requires the
Probation Officer to provide the child's history regarding his mental
condition, physical condition, habits, interests, personality traits,
neighbourhood, neighbours' report, and school, employment, if any,
friends, the child being subject to any form of abuse, circumstances of
apprehension of the child, mental condition of the child. The most
important part of the report is the third part i.e. the result of inquiry
where the Probation Officer is required to inform the Board about the
emotional factors, physical condition, intelligence, social and economic
factors, suggestive cause of the problems, analysis of the case including
reasons/contributing factors for the offence, opinion of experts consulted
                                           8

and recommendation regarding rehabilitation by the Probation
Officer/Child Welfare Officer. It is incumbent upon the Juvenile Justice
Board to take into consideration the social investigation report and make
an objective assessment on the reasonable grounds for rejecting the bail
application of the juvenile.

20.   Section 3 of "JJ Act, 2015" provides that the Central Government,
the State Government, the Board, and other agencies, as the case may be,
while implementing the provisions of the Act, shall be guided by the
fundamental principles of care and protection of children. Some of the
principles are as under:

       (i) Principle of presumption of innocence: Any child shall be presumed to be
       an innocent of any mala-fide or criminal intent up to the age of eighteen
       years.

       (ii) Principle of dignity and worth: All human being shall be treated with
       equal dignity and rights.

       (iii) Principle of best interest: All decisions regarding the child shall be
       based on the primary consideration that they are in the best interest of the
       child and to help the child to develop full potential.

       (iv) Principle of family responsibility: The primary responsibility of care,
       nurture and protection of the child shall be that of the biological family or
       adoptive or foster parents, as the case may be.

       (v) Principle of non-stigmatising semantics: Adversarial or accusatory
       words are not to be used in the process pertaining to a child.

       (vi) Principle of right to privacy and confidentiality: Every child shall have
       a right to protection of his privacy and confidentiality, by all means and
       through out the judicial process.

21.   After noticing the position of law, now I revert back to the facts of
the present case. The Social Information Report (SIR), demonstrates that
in the family of the revisionist, father aged about 39 years, mother aged
about 37 years, 1 sister aged about 14 years are living. The father of the
revisionist is working in Railway as Train Manager. The mother of the
revisionist is post graduate lady and sister of the revisionist is in
studying in High School. It also reveals that relations among the family
                                    9

members are cordial; parents of the juvenile have no criminal
antecedent. The SIR further noted that the discipline in the house of the
juvenile is moderate. Lack of parental control over the juvenile was
found.

22.   The first information report dated 9.12.2025 has been lodged
against the 7 named and 6-7 unknown person by the father of the
deceased stating that co-accused Mayank came to the house of the first
informant and took away the deceased with him assuring that he will
return after sometime. Thereafter, uncle of the deceased, Jagatpal
informed the first informant that the accused persons killed the deceased.

23.   In view of the above foregoing discussion, I am not satisfied with
the reasoning and conclusion of the Appellate Court as well as the
Juvenile Justice Board in the impugned judgment and order. The
Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have not properly
appreciated the mandatory provisions of Section 12 of "JJ Act, 2015" as
well as other provisions in relation to juvenile 'X' and have declined to
grant bail merely on the basis of unfounded apprehension. In the absence
of any material or evidence of reasonable grounds, it cannot be said that
his release would defeat the ends of justice and have failed to give
reasons on three contingencies for declining the bail to the revisionist.
The findings recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the
Appellate Court are based on the heinousness of the offence, therefore,
the order dated 10.3.2026 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board and
judgment dated 16.5.2026 passed by the Appellate Court are not
sustainable. Hence, the above-mentioned orders are set aside and the
present criminal revision is allowed.

24.   Let the revisionist, aged about 17 years, 4 months and 4 days, who
is in observation home since 13.12.2025 be released on bail via
assurance and surety given by his natural guardian/father in Case Crime
No. 1184 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 191(3), 190, B.N.S.,
Police Station- Majhola, District- Moradabad, after furnishing a personal
bond of Rs. 25,000/- of his father (Ishmendra Singh) with two sureties of
                                                                     10

                            his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile
                            Justice Board, Moradabad, subject to the following conditions:

                                        (i) Natural guardian/father will furnish an undertaking that upon
                                        release on bail the revisionist will not be permitted to go into
                                        contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be
                                        exposed to any moral, physical, or psychological danger and
                                        further that the mother will ensure that the juvenile will not
                                        repeat the offence.

                                        (ii) Natural guardian/father will further furnish an undertaking to
                                        the effect that the juvenile will pursue his study at the appropriate
                                        level which he would be encouraged to do besides other
                                        constructive activities and not be allowed to waste his time in
                                        unproductive and excessive recreational pursuits.

                                        (iii) Juvenile and natural guardian/father will report to the
                                        Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month
                                        commencing with the fourth Monday of October 2026, and if
                                        during any calendar month the first Monday falls on a holiday,
                                        then on the following working day.

                                        (iv) The Probation Officer will keep a strict vigil on the activities
                                        of the juvenile and regularly draw up his social investigation
                                        report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board,
                                        Moradabad, on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice
                                        Board may determine.



                                                                              (Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)

                            September 15, 2026
                            T. Sinha




Digitally signed by :-
TRIPTI SINHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad