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

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant / juvenile has been falsely implicated in this case. As per prosecution version, a dead body of a lady was recovered on 11.02.2025 and inquest proceedings and post-mortem were conducted as an unknown person. Said dead body could not be identified. First information report was registered by the police after 10 days of the incident. There is no eye witness of the incident. It was submitted that as per prosecution version, 2 CRLA No. 8513 of 2025 accused persons were identified by the conductor in CCTV footage but that allegation is highly improbable. During pendency of the case, the appellant was declared juvenile by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Etah. In view of provisions of Section - 15/18 of Juvenile Justice Act, appellant / juvenile was referred to Children Court for trial as an adult. The appellant has moved a bail application before the trial Court, which has been rejected by impugned order. It was submitted that appellant being a juvenile is entitled for bail under provisions of Section 12 Juvenile Justice Act. Similarly placed co-accused Akhil Pratap Singh @ Shyam has already been granted bail. The appellant is in custody since 24.02.2025. It was submitted that as the main accused is on bail and there is no credible evidence against appellant / juvenile thus, considering provisions of Section - 12 Juvenile Justice Act, the appellant may be released on bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the appeal and submitted that there is evidence that appellant was involved in the murder of deceased and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

6. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.

7. Perusal of records shows that dead body of an unknown lady was found on 11.02.2025 and inquest proceedings and post-mortem were conducted as unknown person. Said dead body could not be identified. First information report was registered by the police after 10 days of the incident. There is no eye witness of the alleged incident and case is based upon circumstantial evidence. As per prosecution version, appellant and co-accused were seen in a CCTV footage along with the deceased. The appellant has claimed juvenility and later he was declared juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board, Etah. It appears from record that on the date of incident, his age was 16 years, 07 months and 06 days and thus, in view of provisions of Section - 15 r/w Section - 18 (3) Juvenile Justice Act, his case was referred to the Children Court, where he is being tried as an adult. During pendency of trial, the appellant has moved bail application 3 CRLA No. 8513 of 2025 before the Court of Presiding Officer, Juvenile Court / Additional Sessions Judge, Etah, which has been rejected vide order dated

25.07.2025.

8. At this stage, it would be appropriate to quote the provisions of Section - 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, which read as under :- "12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law.- - (1) when any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or 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 or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the any fit person: Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds care of for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision. (2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub- section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board. (3) when such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order. (4) when a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail."

9. Considering the law laid down in case of Sachin Yadav (Juvenile) Vs State of U.P. and Another (2019: AHC: 93790), it is clear that the bail of a child aged between 16-17 years, who is being tried by Children Court as an adult, has to be considered at the parameter of provisions of Section - 12 of Juvenile Justice Act.

10. From perusal of the Section - 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, it is clear that a juvenile is entitled to bail, notwithstanding the gravity of the offence and the bail application can be refused only when there are reasonable 4 CRLA No. 8513 of 2025 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. This Court in a number of judgements has categorically held that bail to juvenile can only be refused, if any of the above-stated ground exists. In the present case, learned trial court has not stated about any material on what basis this conclusion has been drawn that in case, appellant is released on bail, his release may bring him into association with known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

11. It may be seen that the appellant / juvenile is not named in the first Information report and there is no eye witness of the incident. The dead body of deceased lady could not be identified so far. Only evidence shown against appellant and co-accused was that they were seen along with deceased in CCTV footage. Similarly placed co-accused Akhil Pratap Singh @ Shyam has already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. In Probation Officer report, nothing adverse has been mentioned. As stated above, in such matters, mere gravity of offence can not be a ground to reject the bail application of a appellant / juvenile when his case does not fall within the exceptions as mentioned in Section - 12 (1) of Juvenile Justice Act. Appellant is in custody since 24.02.2025. In view of these facts and circumstances, a case for grant of bail to the appellant-juvenile is made out. Learned trial Court has not considered matter in correct perspective and committed error by rejecting bail application of appellant juvenile.

12. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 25.07.2025 is set aside. Let the appellant - Juvenile 'X' be released on bail in the aforesaid criminal case and be given into custody of his guardian on furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned on the following 5 CRLA No. 8513 of 2025 conditions :- (i) That, the guardian of the appellant will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail that the juvenile will not be permitted to go 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 he will make best effort for improvement of juvenile's career. (ii) That, the appellant and his guardian shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. (iii) That, the appellant and his guardian shall not indulge in any criminal or unlawful activities and will not try to contact or otherwise influence the informant or any witness of the case.

13. Appeal is allowed in above terms. December 16, 2025 S Rawat (Raj Beer Singh,J.)

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant / juvenile has been falsely implicated in this case. As per prosecution version, a dead body of a lady was recovered on 11.02.2025 and inquest proceedings and post-mortem were conducted as an unknown person. Said dead body could not be identified. First information report was registered by the police after 10 days of the incident. There is no eye witness of the incident. It was submitted that as per prosecution version, 2 CRLA No. 8513 of 2025 accused persons were identified by the conductor in CCTV footage but that allegation is highly improbable. During pendency of the case, the appellant was declared juvenile by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Etah. In view of provisions of Section - 15/18 of Juvenile Justice Act, appellant / juvenile was referred to Children Court for trial as an adult. The appellant has moved a bail application before the trial Court, which has been rejected by impugned order. It was submitted that appellant being a juvenile is entitled for bail under provisions of Section 12 Juvenile Justice Act. Similarly placed co-accused Akhil Pratap Singh @ Shyam has already been granted bail. The appellant is in custody since 24.02.2025. It was submitted that as the main accused is on bail and there is no credible evidence against appellant / juvenile thus, considering provisions of Section - 12 Juvenile Justice Act, the appellant may be released on bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the appeal and submitted that there is evidence that appellant was involved in the murder of deceased and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

6. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.

7. Perusal of records shows that dead body of an unknown lady was found on 11.02.2025 and inquest proceedings and post-mortem were conducted as unknown person. Said dead body could not be identified. First information report was registered by the police after 10 days of the incident. There is no eye witness of the alleged incident and case is based upon circumstantial evidence. As per prosecution version, appellant and co-accused were seen in a CCTV footage along with the deceased. The appellant has claimed juvenility and later he was declared juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board, Etah. It appears from record that on the date of incident, his age was 16 years, 07 months and 06 days and thus, in view of provisions of Section - 15 r/w Section - 18 (3) Juvenile Justice Act, his case was referred to the Children Court, where he is being tried as an adult. During pendency of trial, the appellant has moved bail application 3 CRLA No. 8513 of 2025 before the Court of Presiding Officer, Juvenile Court / Additional Sessions Judge, Etah, which has been rejected vide order dated

25.07.2025.

8. At this stage, it would be appropriate to quote the provisions of Section - 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, which read as under :- "12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law.- - (1) when any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or 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 or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the any fit person: Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds care of for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision. (2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub- section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board. (3) when such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order. (4) when a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail."

9. Considering the law laid down in case of Sachin Yadav (Juvenile) Vs State of U.P. and Another (2019: AHC: 93790), it is clear that the bail of a child aged between 16-17 years, who is being tried by Children Court as an adult, has to be considered at the parameter of provisions of Section - 12 of Juvenile Justice Act.

10. From perusal of the Section - 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, it is clear that a juvenile is entitled to bail, notwithstanding the gravity of the offence and the bail application can be refused only when there are reasonable 4 CRLA No. 8513 of 2025 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. This Court in a number of judgements has categorically held that bail to juvenile can only be refused, if any of the above-stated ground exists. In the present case, learned trial court has not stated about any material on what basis this conclusion has been drawn that in case, appellant is released on bail, his release may bring him into association with known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

11. It may be seen that the appellant / juvenile is not named in the first Information report and there is no eye witness of the incident. The dead body of deceased lady could not be identified so far. Only evidence shown against appellant and co-accused was that they were seen along with deceased in CCTV footage. Similarly placed co-accused Akhil Pratap Singh @ Shyam has already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. In Probation Officer report, nothing adverse has been mentioned. As stated above, in such matters, mere gravity of offence can not be a ground to reject the bail application of a appellant / juvenile when his case does not fall within the exceptions as mentioned in Section - 12 (1) of Juvenile Justice Act. Appellant is in custody since 24.02.2025. In view of these facts and circumstances, a case for grant of bail to the appellant-juvenile is made out. Learned trial Court has not considered matter in correct perspective and committed error by rejecting bail application of appellant juvenile.

12. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 25.07.2025 is set aside. Let the appellant - Juvenile 'X' be released on bail in the aforesaid criminal case and be given into custody of his guardian on furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned on the following 5 CRLA No. 8513 of 2025 conditions :- (i) That, the guardian of the appellant will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail that the juvenile will not be permitted to go 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 he will make best effort for improvement of juvenile's career. (ii) That, the appellant and his guardian shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. (iii) That, the appellant and his guardian shall not indulge in any criminal or unlawful activities and will not try to contact or otherwise influence the informant or any witness of the case.

13. Appeal is allowed in above terms. December 16, 2025 S Rawat (Raj Beer Singh,J.)