Allowed¶32

X Juvenile v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2026CRLR/972/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Juvenile bail; Section 12 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000; bail rejection set aside; Juvenile Justice Board Sonbhadra; Criminal Appeal No.78/2025; Special Judge POCSO Act; Case Crime No.99 of 2025; Sections 103(1) and 238 BNS; Sections 4 and 25 Arms Act; observation home since 01.06.2025; DPO report vague; trial not concluded within statutory time frame; personal bond Rs. 20,000/- two sureties; Allahabad High Court; CRLR No. 972 of 2026; Jai Prakash Tiwari, J.; April 20, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection orders set aside; revisionist juvenile directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties each of like amount, subject to specified conditions; Registrar (compliance) to communicate the order to the Child Observation Home within a week.

X Juvenile vs State of U.P. and Another — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders dated 11.11.2025 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Sonbhadra and dated 17.12.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.78/2025 refusing bail to the juvenile applicant are sustainable under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, or are erroneous and liable to be set aside.

¶23

Court's answer

None of the contingencies in Section 12 of the Act disentitles the applicant to bail: he was a juvenile on the date of occurrence, shows no criminal proclivity per the DPO observations, has no criminal history, and the trial has not concluded within the time frame contemplated by the Act; his father undertakes to address the statutory concerns as to his safety and well-being upon release.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The findings recorded by the learned courts below are in conflict with the settled principle of law governing grant of bail to a juvenile and are erroneous and contrary to law; consequently the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are set aside.

¶31

Key takeaways

The criminal revision is allowed and the revisionist juvenile is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties each of like amount, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses; undertaking through guardian not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present; presence before the trial court on each date, failing which action under Section 229-A IPC/269 BNSS; trial to proceed without unnecessary adjournments), and the Registrar (compliance) is to communicate the order to the Child Observation Home within a week.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Juvenile bail — Criminal Revision (Allahabad High Court, CRLR No. 972 of 2026, Jai Prakash Tiwari, J., decided 20.04.2026) against orders dated 11.11.2025 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Sonbhadra and dated 17.12.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.78/2025 refusing bail in Case Crime No.99 of 2025 (Sections 103(1), 238 BNS; Sections 4, 25 Arms Act, P.S. Shakti Nagar) — Held: under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 bail may be refused only on three contingencies (association with known criminals; exposure to moral, physical or psychological danger; defeat of the ends of justice); none made out — applicant was about 15 years 10 months old at the incident, in the observation home since 01.06.2025, no criminal history, DPO report contained only general and vague observations, and the trial had not concluded within the time frame contemplated by the Act — findings of the courts below held erroneous and set aside — revision allowed; juvenile released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions including an undertaking through the guardian not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present and presence before the trial court on each date; Registrar (compliance) to communicate the order to the Child Observation Home within a week.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 972 of 2026

¶3

X Juvenile

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Chandra Shekhar Kushwaha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 84

¶7

HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶9

The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by learned Juvenile Court/Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, in Criminal Appeal No.78/2025 (Prince Bharati Vs.State of U.P. and another) and the order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sonbhadra in Case Crime No.99 of 2025 under Sections- 103(1), 238 BNS, Section- 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Shakti Nagar, District Sonbhadra.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits:

¶11

(i) admittedly, the applicant was a juvenile aged about 15 years and 10 months on the date of alleged incident; He is in observation home since 01.06.2025;

¶12

(ii) the applicant has been falsely implicated;

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

CRLR No. 972 of 2026

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party has 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.

¶22

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'.

¶23

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:-

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

Thus, it remains largely undisputed that the applicant - was a juvenile on

¶28

CRLR No. 972 of 2026

¶29

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

In view of the observations made above, the present criminal revision is allowed.

¶33

Let the revisionist X Juvenile, 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:

¶34

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

¶35

(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;

¶36

(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.

¶37

CRLR No. 972 of 2026

¶38

¶39

(iv) The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial without granting any unnecessary or long adjournments to either of the parties.

¶40

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

¶41

(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)

¶42

April 20, 2026

¶43