JUVENILE XversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7976 of 2025

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

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

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Anil Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashutosh Kumar Gupta,                  Laxmi
                                Shankar Yadav, G.A.

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

Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist is taken on record.

Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A.
for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2/informant.

The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated
31.10.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge,
POCSO Act, Court No. 1, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 175 of
2025; titled Juvenile X vs. State of U.P. and another, as well as the order
dated 18.09.2025 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board,
Gorakhpur, arising out of Case Crime No. 27 of 2025, under Sections
65(1), 87, 137(2), 115(2) BNS and Section 5(j)(2)/6 POCSO Act, Police
Station Barhalganj, District Gorakhpur.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits:

(i) admittedly, the applicant was a juvenile aged about 16 years, 00
months and 8 days on the date of alleged incident; He is in jail since
16.05.2025;

(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. 7976 of 2025
                                2


(iv) there is no criminal history of the applicant;

(v) there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;

(vi) the revisionist has remained confined in the child observation home
for an unduly long period of time;

(vii) 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.

(ix) 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:-

(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
                                                           CRLR No. 7976 of 2025
                                3


(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 X through his natural guardian
father namely Dallu Nishad 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;

(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall remain present before the trial
Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case
                                                                                         CRLR No. 7976 of 2025
                                                                 4


                                    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
                                    Brijesh




Digitally signed by :-
BRIJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad