Kishor Apchari Xxx Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

Kishor Apchari Xxx Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned bail-refusal orders set aside; juvenile revisionist directed to be released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions (non-tampering with evidence/witnesses, guardian undertaking against seeking adjournments on evidence dates, presence before trial court on each date), with Registrar (compliance) to communicate the order to the Child Observation Home concerned within a week.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned orders of the Juvenile Justice Board, Kasganj (28.2.2025) and the Juvenile Court/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Kasganj (29.4.2025) 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 revisionist is entitled to release on bail. +1 more

Court's answer

None of the three contingencies in Section 12 of the Act (association with known criminals, exposure to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat of the ends of justice) was made out: the applicant showed no criminal proclivity or psychology per the DPO observations, had no criminal history, had remained confined for an unduly long period with the trial not concluded within the time frame contemplated by the Act; therefore no factor or circumstance under Section 12 disentitled him to bail.

Ratio / Principle

Under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, gravity of the offence is neither mentioned as a ground to reject a juvenile's bail nor is it a relevant factor while considering grant of bail to a juvenile, as held in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu v. State of U.P., 2010 (68) ACC 616 (LB).

Key takeaways

The findings recorded by the courts below on the question of bail are in conflict with the settled principle in law and are erroneous; consequently the impugned orders are set aside.ratio¶¶26
The criminal revision is allowed; the juvenile revisionist (X-Juvenile, s/o Satish @ Pappu) is to be released on bail on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions: no tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses; an undertaking through the guardian not to seek adjournments on evidence dates; and presence before the trial court on each date personally or through counsel, absence without sufficient cause inviting action under Section 229-A IPC / Section 269 BNS; Registrar (compliance) to communicate the order to the Child Observation Home within a week.ratio¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision allowed — Juvenile bail — Orders of Juvenile Justice Board, Kasganj dated 28.2.2025 and Juvenile Court/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Kasganj dated 29.4.2025 in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2025 refusing bail set aside — Revisionist, a juvenile aged about 16 years 3 months on the date of incident, in Child Protection Home since 20.8.2024, no criminal history, no specific or strong objection in DPO report, trial not concluded within the time frame contemplated by the Act — Section 12, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 permits refusal of a juvenile's bail only on three contingencies (association with known criminals; moral, physical or psychological danger; defeat of the ends of justice) — Gravity of the offence is not a relevant factor in considering a juvenile's bail (Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu v. State of U.P., 2010 (68) ACC 616 (LB)) — Bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions including undertaking through guardian and attendance before the trial court, default attracting Section 229-A IPC / Section 269 BNS.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134029

Court No. - 47

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3169 of 2025

Revisionist :- Kishor Apchari Xxx Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

As per office report dated 6.8.2025 notice on opposite party no.2 has been served, but no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 to oppose this criminal 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 29.4.2025 passed by Juvenile Court/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Kasganj in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 05 of 2025 and order dated 28.2.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, 28.2.2025 in Case Crime No. 466 of 2024 (Case No. 45 of 2024) under Sections 115(2),127(2),351 (3) B.N.S. and section 5/6 POCSO Act Police Station Kasganj District Kasganj.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits:

(i) admittedly, the revisionist was a juvenile, aged about 16 years 3 months on the date of alleged incident. He is in Child Protection Home since 20.8.2024;

(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 Satish @ Pappu, 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 :- 7.8.2025 Atul kr. sri.

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