X Juvenile vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

X Juvenile vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal revision allowed; impugned orders set aside; revisionist X-Juvenile, s/o Ram Bhadur Lodi, to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties each of like amount, subject to conditions: (i) not to tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses; (ii) guardian to file undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, default being treated as abuse of bail liberty; (iii) presence before the trial court on each date personally or through counsel, absence without sufficient cause being punishable under Section 229-A IPC / Section 269 BNS. Registrar (compliance) directed to communicate the order to the concerned Child Observation Home within a week.

Issue for consideration

Whether the opinions recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court in refusing bail to the juvenile revisionist are in consonance with Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and whether the impugned orders are therefore sustainable.

Court's answer

Gravity of the offence has not been prescribed as a ground to reject the bail of a juvenile and is not a relevant factor while considering grant of bail to a juvenile, as held in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu v. State of U.P. and consistently followed.

Ratio / Principle

Section 12 of the Act permits refusal of bail to a juvenile offender only on three contingencies: likelihood of association with known criminals, exposure to moral, physical or psychological danger, or release defeating the ends of justice.

Key takeaways

On the facts — the applicant being a juvenile, showing no criminal proclivity per the DPO observations, having no criminal history, and confined for an unduly long period with the trial not concluded within the timeframe contemplated by the Act — no factor or circumstance under Section 12 exists to disentitle him to bail.ratio¶¶26
The findings recorded by the courts below are in conflict with the settled legal principles governing grant of bail to a juvenile and are erroneous and contrary to the law laid down by the Allahabad High Court; accordingly the impugned orders are set aside.ratio¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Juvenile bail — Criminal revision under JJ Act regime — Orders of Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur (4.2.2025) and Juvenile Court/Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Fatehpur (17.4.2025) in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2025 refusing bail in Case Crime No. 128 of 2024 under Sections 65(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 5m/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Hussainganj, District Fatehpur, set aside. Held: gravity of the offence is not a prescribed ground nor a relevant factor for refusing bail to a juvenile, relying on Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu v. State of U.P., 2010 (68) ACC 616 (LB); Section 12, JJ Act 2000 permits refusal only on three contingencies (association with known criminals; exposure to moral, physical or psychological danger; release defeating ends of justice). Revisionist, aged about 17 years at the incident, in Child Protection Home since 28.7.2024, with no criminal history and only general/vague DPO observations against him, and trial not concluded within the Act's timeframe — no Section 12 disqualification made out. Revision allowed; juvenile released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of like amount, with conditions including guardian undertakings and attendance before the trial court, breach punishable under Section 229-A IPC / Section 269 BNS. (Siddharth, J.; decided 21.7.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:118583.)

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118583

Court No. - 47

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2905 of 2025

Revisionist :- X Juvenile Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Rahul Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

Compliance affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

Learned A.G.A. informs that notice has been served upon the opposite party no.2 but no one has turned up to oppose the revision.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated 17.4.2025 passed by Juvenile Court/Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act) Fatehour in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2025 and order dated 4.2.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur in Case Crime No. 128 2024 under Section 65(2),352,351(2) B.N.S. and section 5m/6 POCSO Act Police Station Hussainganj District Fatehpur.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits:

(i) admittedly, the revisionist was a juvenile, aged about 17 years, 1 month 19 days on the date of alleged incident. He is in Child Protection Home since 28.7.2024;

(ii) the revisionist 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) there is no criminal history of the revisionist;

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

(vi) the applicant 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 revisionist 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 revisionist 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?

Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the bail. It is not a relevant factor while considering to grant bail to the juvenile. It has been so held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB) . It has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions of this court.

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 dis-entitle 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. 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, s/o Ram Bhadur Lodi, 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/ section 269 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita .

Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate the order to the Child Observation Home concerned within a week.

Order Date :- 21.7.2025 Atul kr. sri.

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