X Juvenile L Minor State Of U.P. And 3 Others v. Revisionist(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Yogesh Kumar Tripathi

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits: (i) admittedly, the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of alleged incident being 14 years, 09 months and 14 days of age; he is in child protection home since 20.05.2025. (ii) the revisionist has been falsely implicated; (iii) there is no specific or strong objection raised in the D.P.O 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; 2 CRLR No. 5830 of 2025 (vi) the revisionist has remained confined in the child observation home for an unduly long period of time; (vii) both the revisionists (juvenile in same case) have been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.09.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No.4319 of 2025 and 29.08.2025 in Criminal Revision No.4299 of 2025; (viii) 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 revisionist. (ix) therefore, the impugned orders have been assailed as erroneous and contrary to law.

4. 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 revisionist rejection orders to submit that the instant revision may be dismissed.

5. 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'.

6. 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 3 CRLR No. 5830 of 2025 (ii) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or (iii) that his release would defeat the ends of justice?

7. Thus, it remains largely undisputed that the revisionist - 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; both the revisionists (juvenile in same case) in Criminal Revision No.4319 of 2025 and 29.08.2025 in Criminal Revision No.4299 of 2025 have been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 01.09.2025 and

29.08.2025. Even otherwise, there does not appear to exist any factor or circumstance mentioned in section 12 of the Act as may disentitle the revisionist to grant of bail, at this stage. The father of the revisionist undertakes to address the statutory concerns expressed in section 12 of the Act, as to the safety and well being of the revisionist, upon his release.

8. In view of the above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned courts 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 orders are hereby set aside.

9. In view of the observations made above, the present criminal revision is allowed. Let the revisionist, X Juvenile 'L' son of Ramveer, through his guardian mother namely- Smt. Guddin, 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 4 CRLR No. 5830 of 2025 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.

10. Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate the order to the Child Observation Home concerned within a week. October 9, 2025 S.K. (Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits: (i) admittedly, the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of alleged incident being 14 years, 09 months and 14 days of age; he is in child protection home since 20.05.2025. (ii) the revisionist has been falsely implicated; (iii) there is no specific or strong objection raised in the D.P.O 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; 2 CRLR No. 5830 of 2025 (vi) the revisionist has remained confined in the child observation home for an unduly long period of time; (vii) both the revisionists (juvenile in same case) have been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.09.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No.4319 of 2025 and 29.08.2025 in Criminal Revision No.4299 of 2025; (viii) 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 revisionist. (ix) therefore, the impugned orders have been assailed as erroneous and contrary to law.

4. 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 revisionist rejection orders to submit that the instant revision may be dismissed.

5. 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'.

6. 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 3 CRLR No. 5830 of 2025 (ii) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or (iii) that his release would defeat the ends of justice?

7. Thus, it remains largely undisputed that the revisionist - 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; both the revisionists (juvenile in same case) in Criminal Revision No.4319 of 2025 and 29.08.2025 in Criminal Revision No.4299 of 2025 have been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 01.09.2025 and

29.08.2025. Even otherwise, there does not appear to exist any factor or circumstance mentioned in section 12 of the Act as may disentitle the revisionist to grant of bail, at this stage. The father of the revisionist undertakes to address the statutory concerns expressed in section 12 of the Act, as to the safety and well being of the revisionist, upon his release.

8. In view of the above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned courts 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 orders are hereby set aside.

9. In view of the observations made above, the present criminal revision is allowed. Let the revisionist, X Juvenile 'L' son of Ramveer, through his guardian mother namely- Smt. Guddin, 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 4 CRLR No. 5830 of 2025 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.

10. Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate the order to the Child Observation Home concerned within a week. October 9, 2025 S.K. (Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)