X(MINOR)versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7116 of 2025

X(Minor)
                                                            .....Revisionist(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Rajesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhishek Saroj, G.A., Sunil Kumar
                                Yadav

Court No. - 84
                 HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and
learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated
18.9.2025 passed by Special Addl. Sessions Judge (POCSO)-I, Bhadohi,
Gyanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2025 (X vs. State of U.P.) and the
order dated 30.7.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bhadohi in
Bail No. 90 of 2025 in Case Crime No. 201 of 2025 under Section 103(1)
BNS, Police Station Aurai, District Bhadohi.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits:

(i) admittedly, the applicant was a juvenile aged about 14 years, 10
months and 23 days on the date of alleged incident; He is in custody since
7.5.2025;

(ii) the applicant has been falsely implicated on the basis of suspicion due
to previous enmity;

(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 eye-witness of the incident;
                                                           CRLR No. 7116 of 2025
                                 2


(vi) there are contradictions in the version of FIR and statements of the
witnesses recorded during investigation;

(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. as well as learned counsel for the informant 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:-

(i) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known
criminal, or
                                                           CRLR No. 7116 of 2025
                                3


(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 mother 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- X(Minor) through his mother/ natural
guardian Smt. Sangeeta 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
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;
                                                                                            CRLR No. 7116 of 2025
                                                                   4


                                    (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 2, 2026
                                    KK Patel




Digitally signed by :-
KRISHN KANT PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad