X JUVENILEversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7379 of 2025

X Juvenile
                                                            .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Devendra Mani Tripathi, Pawan Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Arvind Singh Sengar, G.A.

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

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for O.P. No.2
and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated
16.10.2025 passed by Children's Court, Chitrakoot in Criminal Appeal
No. 41 of 2025 (Gyan Prasad Pandey, Guardian/Grandfather vs. State of
U.P. and others) and the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the Juvenile
Justice Board, Chitrakoot, in Misc. Case No. 38 of 2025 arising out of
Case Crime No. 184 of 2025 under Section 103(1), 115(2), 351(3), 352,
117(2) BNS, Police Station Mau, District Chitrakoot.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits:

(i) admittedly, the applicant was a juvenile aged about 15 years, 10
months and 10 days on the date of alleged incident; He is in observation
home since 18.06.2025;

(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;

(iv) injury reports of the injured persons suggest that they sustained
simple injuries;

(v) FIR of the present case was lodged with the lapse of 18 days and there
                                                           CRLR No. 7379 of 2025
                                 2


is no plausible explanation in this regard.

(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 as well as learned counsel for O.P. No.2
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. 7379 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 natural
guardhan 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 order dated are hereby set aside.

In view of the observations made above, the present criminal revision is
allowed. Let the revisionist X Juvenile S/o Rama Niwas Pandey through
grandfather/ natural guardian Sri Gyan Prasad Pandey, 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. 7379 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 20, 2026
                                    KK Patel




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