Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1446 Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1264 of 2024 Appellant :- X Juvenile/Accused Of Case Crime No. 382/2023 Thru. His Father Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Aditya Mishra,Abhaya Kumar Yadav,Anil Kumar Tiwari,Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant through his natural guardian-Budhram(father) under Section 101 (5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the the judgment and order dated 21.02.2024 passed by learned Children Court/Special Court(POCSO Act), Balrampur in Bail Application No.234/2024 arising out of case crime No.382/2023, under Section 376 and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Pachperwa, District Balrampur. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A for State. A perusal of the record shows that complainant has died and notice is served to the brother of the complainant Mubarak however, none appears on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that F.I.R. has been lodged via application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The incident is of 06.09.2023 and the F.I.R. has been lodged on 30.10.2023. The victim in her statements under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. has admitted the enmity with the appellant. There is lack of corroborative medical evidence in support of the prosecution case. The victim is illiterate and in the ossification test, she has been found to be 17 years of age, however, plus- minus two years of variation is possible on either side in determination of the age as per the ossification test and the appellant being the accused is entitled to the benefit of higher side in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of "Jaya Mala v. Govt. of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538". Applicant has no criminal history. Learned A.G.A has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that if the appellant is released on bail, he will join in the company of habitual criminal, hence he is not entitled for bail. 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 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 [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. 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. 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." 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 plea 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. On due consideration to the statement of the victim under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., the age of the victim, period of incarceration gone into by the appellant as he is in jail since 10.11.2023, lack of corroborative evidence in support of the prosecution case, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 21.02.2024 is hereby set aside. Let the appellant be released on bail in the aforesaid criminal case and be given in the custody of his father on furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board concerned on the following conditions. (i)That, Budhram (father) / natural guardian of the appellant will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail, 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 carrier. (ii)That the appellant and his aforesaid father/ natural guardian shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. Order Date :- 8.1.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench