Allowed

Juvenile a Thru. His Guardian Real Mother v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2026CRLA/167/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A juvenile, about 16-17 years old, whose bail was rejected after he was ordered to be tried as an adult for offences including murder under BNS 2023, appealed under Section 101(5) of the Juvenile Justice Act. The High Court held bail cannot be rejected mechanically, found the orders cursory, set them aside and granted bail with conditions.

What the court decided

AI extract

Juvenile a Thru. His Guardian Real Mother vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 167 of 2026

¶3

Juvenile A Thru. His Guardian Real Mother

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Another	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) :	P.K. Singh Bisen
Counsel for Respondent(s) :	G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 27

¶8

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶9

This present criminal appeal is being preferred Under Section 101 (5) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the judgment and order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Children Court, Pratapgarh by which the bail application of the appellant bearing Bail Application No. 4638 of 2025 (Juvenile 'A" through his Guardian Versus State of U.P.) arising from Case Crime No. 105 of 2025 registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 3(5), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 103 (2) of B.N.S., 2023 (147, 148, 323, 34, 504, 506, 307, NA of I.P.C. 3 (2) 5, 3 (2) 5a of to Police Station respectively), 3(1) Da, 3 (1) Dha, S.C. & S.T. Act relating Kohndaur, District Pratapgarh, has been rejected.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. submits that the notice has already been served on Kamala Saroj, respondent no.2 on 20.01.2026 through police station concerned.

¶12

None appeared on behalf of the respondent to oppose the present bail application.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, according to the prosecution version, as appears from the F.I.R. and the investigation, the incident occurred on 6/7/2025 at 5:30 p.m. The F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant, Kamala Saroj, with the allegation that on 6/7/2025 at about 05:30 p.m., the accused Akash Mishra teased her daughter when she was going to the shop. Hearing her screams, family members of the informant rushed to the place, whereupon Aakash left the place after hurling threats on witnesses. The informant informed the local police by dialing 112, and the police team reached the spot and asked him to give an application. When the informant and the witnesses were going to file an application at the police station concerned, they were ambushed by the accused persons, who were armed with lathi and danda. Akash Mishra was armed with a pistol. They struck blows with lathi and

¶14

CRLA No. 167 of 2026

¶15

¶16

danda on the informant, Kamala Saroj, Babu Lal, Amit Saroj, Sudesh Saroj, Neeraj Saroj, and Vishal Saroj. Three persons were injured and were rushed to the hospital. Accused Babu Lal succumbed to his injuries.

¶17

He next submitted that Babu Lal suffered three injuries, out of which injury no.1 which was on the head, was found to be vital in the post-mortem report. He died on 9/7/2025.He also submitted that the injuries of the other injured persons were not found to be grievous. He also submitted that the main accused, Akash Mishra, alias Rocky Mishra, has already been granted bail by this court, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11763 of 2025, by the order dated 28/11/2025. He also submitted that one, Shubham Mishra, has already been granted bail by this court passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10596 of 2025, by the order dated 31/10/2025. In another case, a co-accused who was held Juvenile in conflict of Law was granted bail by the lower appellate court, who has been assigned a similar role to that of present appellant. The only difference between the two is that the present appellant is found to be aged about 16 to 17 at the time of the incident, and therefore, he has been directed by the trial court under section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Court under the provisions of the Children's Act whereas, the other co-accused was below 16 years of age and was being tried by the Juvenile Justice Board.

¶18

He further submitted that similar role has been assigned to the appellant along with the co-accused persons. No specific role has been assigned to the appellant in the offense. As many as 12 persons are named in the FIR. The bail application of the applicant is liable to be heard and decided under the provisions of the Justice Justice Act. Despite all the facts, he has been directed to be tried as an adult before the Children Court . The POSCO Court has rejected the bail application filed by the appellant by the impugned order without addressing any grounds as provided in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015. There is nothing in the investigation of District Probation Officer against the appellant which could justify the order of rejection of bail for the appellant. There is no material in support of the findings of the trial court against the order of release on bail. He may come in associations with some criminals who may subject him to physical, moral, or psychological torture or the circumstances related to the appellant in case of grant of bail, the ends of justice will get defeated.

¶19

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the learned trial court has rightly rejected the bail of the appellant as there is possibility that on being released on bail he may come into association of criminal elements.

¶20

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (Act) has been enacted with object to reform and protect the future career of children below the age of 18 years. The main purpose of this Act is to keep the juvenile out of company and society of habitual criminals and to keep them in place of safety. The parameter and guidelines for assessment of plea of bail of a juvenile has been provided in Section 12 of the Act

CRLA No. 167 of 2026

which is as under:-

"When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety 1[or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution of fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release 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.

¶25

When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer incharge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board.

¶26

When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order."

¶27

Thus it is clear that the provision for release to a juvenile has overriding effect to any provision contained in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force. According to this provision, a duty has been cost to grant bail to a juvenile unless there is a reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into association with any known criminal or exposed the said juvenile to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the end of justice.

¶28

Plea of bail raised by juvenile cannot be rejected in a mechanical manner. While considering the parameter provided in Section 12 of the Act, nature of offence, role played by the juvenile in committing the offence, his family background, his association with known or unknown criminals or bad elements of society, number of person named in the occurrence and future carrier of juvenile should also be taken into consideration by Juvenile Justice Board or court concerned in addition to the other factors.

¶29

It has been held by the supreme court in Dr. Subramaniam Swamy vs Raju, 2014 (86) ACC 637 that a juvenile has to be released on bail unless the court has a reasonable ground to believe that his release will bring him into association of some known criminal, or will expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.

¶30

Section 15 of the Amending Act only provides for transfer of a juvenile to the

¶31

CRLA No. 167 of 2026

¶32

¶33

Children Court for trial as an adult. Where the child has attained the age of 16 years and has been alleged to have committed heinous offence, the JJ Board is required to conduct a preliminary inquiry with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit offence, ability to understand the consequence of the offence and the circumstances in which the offence was committed considering their physical, psychological and mental status in commission of crime. Section 18(3) of the Act provides that after making the assessment under section 15, JJ Board comes to a conclusion that there is a need for trial of the child as an adult, the Board may pass an order for the transfer of the trial of the case to the Children Court.

¶34

In this case the revisionist was aged about 16-17 years at the time of occurrence. Admittedly the revisionist was juvenile at the time of occurrence. No material is available on record whereby it can be presumed that the revisionist was in association of any criminal or bad elements.

¶35

From perusal of impugned judgement and order passed by the appellate Court as well as passed by the Board, it transpires that both the trial court have passed the impugned judgement and orders in cursory manner without placing due reliance on the report submitted by the District Probation Officer as well as facts and circumstances of this case. The impugned judgment and orders are liable to be set aside.

¶36

Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 06.01.2026 is hereby set aside.

¶37

17 Let the appellant Juvenile 'A' through his natural guardian/mother be released on bail in the aforesaid criminal case and be given into custody of aforesaid natural guardian on furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of relatives of the aforesaid natural guardian each in like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board concerned on the following conditions.

¶38

(i) That, natural guardian/mother of the appellant will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail, the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known or unknown criminal or exposed to any moral or physical danger and will not indulge in any criminal activity and aforesaid natural guardian will make best effort for improvement of juvenile's carrier.

¶39

(ii) That the appellant and his aforesaid natural guardian shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶40

January 27, 2026 dk/

¶41

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶42

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Juvenile a Thru. His Guardian Real Mother v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Juvenile a Thru. His Guardian Real Mother v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiva Shukla and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Janakram Jaiswal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ajeet Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Satyendra Kumar Shukla vs Addl. Principal Judge Family Court, District Lucknow and 2 Others

Dhruvman Yadav @ Krishna Dhruvman @ Dhruman vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Noorul Islam and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another