Juvenile X vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2392 of 2026

¶3

Juvenile X

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Vinod Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 84

¶7

HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

¶8

Notice annexed with counter affidavit dated 17.4.2026 filed on behalf of State indicates that notice has been served upon informant of the case, but no one has turned up to opposed this revision.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated 11.02.2026 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 43, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2025 (Juvenile X vs. State of U.P.) and the order dated 6.1.2026 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Shahjahanpur in Bail Application No. 04 of 2026 arising out of Case Crime No. 215 of 2025 under Section 137(2), 65(1), BNS & 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Khudaganj, District Shahjahanpur.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits:

¶12

(i) admittedly, the applicant was a juvenile aged about 17 years, 08 years and 06 days on the date of alleged incident; He is in observation home since 19.09.2025;

¶13

(ii) the applicant has been falsely implicated;

¶14

(iii) there is no specific or strong objection raised in the DPO report, other than the general and vague observations;

¶15

CRLR No. 2392 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

(iv) there are contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded during investigation;

¶18

(v) as per statements independent witnesses Dinesh Tripathi, Chandra Prakash and Suresh, victim and revisionist knew each other and they used to talk each other regularly;

¶19

(vi) medical report does not support the prosecution case;

¶20

(vii) there is no criminal history of the applicant;

¶21

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

¶22

(ix) the revisionist has remained confined in the child observation home for an unduly long period of time;

¶23

(x) 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.

¶24

(xi) therefore, the impugned orders have been assailed as erroneous and contrary to law.

¶25

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 applicant 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.

¶26

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'.

¶27

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

¶28

CRLR No. 2392 of 2026

¶29

3

¶30

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:-

¶31

(i) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or

¶32

(ii) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or

¶33

(iii) that his release would defeat the ends of justice?

¶34

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.

¶35

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 order dated are hereby set aside.

¶36

In view of the observations made above, the present criminal revision is allowed. Let the revisionist Juvenile X through his father/ natural guardianship Sri Vishambar Dayal 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:

¶37

(i) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;

¶38

CRLR No. 2392 of 2026

¶39

4

¶40

(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;

¶41

(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.

¶42

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

¶43

(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)

¶44

April 20, 2026 KK Patel

¶45

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Juvenile X v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juvenile X v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shubham Kumar Yadav @ Krishna vs State of U.P.

Delinquent Juvenile X Minor vs State of U.P. and Another

Hameed vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Majeed and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

X Juvenile (Minor) vs State of U.P. and Another

X Juvenile vs State of U.P. and 3 Others