Allahabad High Court
X Juvenile vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 15 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:203197
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7403 of 2025
X Juvenile
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Pradeep Chauhan, Shiva Kant Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 85
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.
Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2/Informant.
At this stage, Sri Ikshwaku Srivastava, learned counsel appears and filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2/Informant, which is taken on record.
Heard Dhirendra Kumar Agrahari, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Shiva Kant Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2/Informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire material available on record. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not desire to file any counter affidavit.
The present criminal revision has been filed to set aside the impugned order dated 28.10.2025 passed by Children's Court/Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Exclusive, Jaunpur in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 2025; titled X-Juvenile vs. State of U.P. through District Magistrate, Jaunpur, as well as the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jaunpur, in Misc. Case No. 303 of 2025; titled State vs. Ghanshyam and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 130 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 70(2), 351(3), 3(5), 115(2) BNS and Section 5Chha/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Shahganj, District Jaunpur with the further prayer to enlarge the juvenile on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits:
(i) admittedly, the applicant was a juvenile aged about 15 years, 11 months, 2 days on the date of alleged incident; He is in jail since 22.04.2025;
(ii) the applicant is innocent and 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) during trial, the victim/PW-1 has been denied all allegations against the revisionist and she has made specific allegation only against co-accused Karan Sharma for committing the said offence;
(v) similarly situated co-accused have already been granted bail by this Court vide order(s) dated 28th October, 2025 and 13th November, 2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36944 of 2025; titled Kunal Pandey vs. State of U.P. and 3 others and Criminal Revision No. 6884 of 2025; titled Juvenile vs. State of U.P. and 3 others; respectively.
(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 counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State though opposed the prayer for bail, but do not dispute the fact that similarly situated co-accused have already granted bail by this Court.
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
(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-X-Juvenile son of Deepchandra Yadav through his father being natural guardian 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 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.)
November 15, 2025
Brijesh
