[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Xx (Child In Conflict With Law) vs State Of Uttarakhand on 18 February, 2026
2026:UHC:1190
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
SECOND BAIL APPLICATION NO. 13 of 2026
XX (Child in conflict with law) ...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Presence:
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel.
Counsel for the State : Mr. Girish Chandra Joshi, A.G.A.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present second bail application has been moved on
behalf of the Applicant, a child in conflict with law, seeking his
enlargement on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 252 of
2021, under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, Police Station Premnagar, District Dehradun. The
Applicant has been in custody since 27.10.2021. The first bail
application was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh and the
present second bail application has been filed on fresh grounds.
2. It is pertinent to note that the first bail application (BA 1
No. 2478 of 2025) preferred by the present Applicant before
this Court was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file
afresh vide order dated 08.01.2026.
Second Bail Application No. 13 of 2026, "XX (Child in conflict with law) vs. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1190
3. As per the State's case, an FIR was lodged alleging that the
victim was found murdered and her throat had been slit. During
investigation, suspicion was raised against the present Applicant
and he was subsequently implicated in the crime. The
investigation culminated in submission of charge-sheet under
Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The trial commenced thereafter and
some prosecution witnesses have been examined, while the trial
is still continuing.
4. The record further reflects that the Applicant was found to
be a child in conflict with law. During the course of proceedings,
a Social Investigation Report was obtained from the District
Probation Officer. The Applicant has remained in
custody/observation home since the date of his arrest and
continues to remain in judicial custody during pendency of trial.
5. Learned counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Rajat Mittal,
submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the present case. It is argued that the case rests
entirely on circumstantial evidence and the chain of
circumstances is yet to be established during trial. The alleged
recovery and confessional aspects are matters of evidence and
cannot be treated as conclusive at this stage. It is further
submitted that the Applicant has no criminal antecedents and his
conduct during custody has been satisfactory.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the Social
Investigation Report does not record any adverse observation
against the Applicant and, in fact, reflects good behavior and
academic progress during custody.
Second Bail Application No. 13 of 2026, "XX (Child in conflict with law) vs. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1190
7. It is contended that the Applicant has been in custody for a
long period since October, 2021 and the trial is not likely to
conclude in near future. Continued detention of a juvenile for an
indefinite period would be contrary to the reformative spirit of
the Juvenile Justice Act, which emphasizes rehabilitation rather
than punishment.
8. It is lastly submitted that the father of the Applicant is
ready to take his responsibility and the Applicant undertakes not
to misuse the liberty of bail.
9. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail
application and submits that the offence alleged against the
Applicant is grave in nature. It is argued that the learned court
below has rightly rejected the bail application considering the
seriousness of the offence and the apprehension that release of
the Applicant may defeat the ends of justice.
10. It is further submitted that there is sufficient material
collected during investigation connecting the Applicant with the
crime and, therefore, he does not deserve to be released on bail.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
12. The Applicant is admittedly a child in conflict with law.
The governing provision regarding bail to a juvenile is Section 12
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015, which provides that a child alleged to have committed an
offence shall ordinarily be released on bail unless there appear
reasonable grounds for believing that his release is likely to bring
Second Bail Application No. 13 of 2026, "XX (Child in conflict with law) vs. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1190
him into association with known criminals, or expose him to
moral, physical or psychological danger, or that his release would
defeat the ends of justice.
13. Thus, the statutory scheme creates a presumption in favour
of bail to a juvenile and denial of bail is an exception which must
be supported by cogent material. In the present case, no concrete
material has been placed before this Court to show that the
release of the Applicant would bring him into association with
criminals or expose him to any moral, physical or psychological
danger.
14. The Social Investigation Report placed on record reflects
satisfactory conduct of the Applicant during custody and does not
disclose any criminal tendency. It also reflects that the Applicant
has shown educational progress during his stay in observation
home. These factors indicate possibility of reformation rather
than criminal inclination.
15. The Applicant has remained in custody since 27.10.2021
and has thus undergone a long period of incarceration. The trial is
still pending and only a few witnesses have been examined so far.
Prolonged detention of a juvenile during pendency of trial, in
absence of exceptional circumstances, is inconsistent with the
reformative and rehabilitative object of the Juvenile Justice Act.
16. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case
and considering the totality of facts and circumstances including
long incarceration, satisfactory conduct, absence of criminal
antecedents, and the statutory mandate favoring release of a
juvenile on bail, this Court is of the view that the Applicant has
made out a case for grant of bail.
Second Bail Application No. 13 of 2026, "XX (Child in conflict with law) vs. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1190
17. Accordingly, the second bail application is allowed.
18. Let the Applicant, X (Child in Conflict with Law), be
released on bail in the aforesaid case upon furnishing personal
bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, subject to the condition that the Applicant shall
remain under the care and supervision of his natural guardian,
shall regularly appear before the trial court on each date fixed,
and shall not tamper with evidence or influence any witness.
___________________
ASHISH NAITHANI, J.
Dt: 18.02.2026
NR\
Second Bail Application No. 13 of 2026, "XX (Child in conflict with law) vs. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
