HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9836 of 2025 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Juvenile X Minor s/o Late Arjun Singh through his legal guardian/mother Maheshwari Devi under Section 101(5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the judgment and order dated 16.09.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Session Judge, Etawah, in Bail Application No. 1915 of 2025 (Juvenile X Vs. State), arising out of Case Crime No.182 of 2020 under Sections 323, 302, 307, 427, 452, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Basrehar, District- Etawah, by which, the bail application of the appellant was dismissed by the Special Court. 2. Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this juvenile bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant through his legal guardian (mother). Learned counsel for appellant in support of his prayer for bail submits that the impugned order of the court below is illegal and perverse. The court below has not appreciated the evidence available on record in proper perspective. The applicant is quite innocent. The informant due to party politics and to exploit the career of applicant rope the applicant in the false case. The applicant has no criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. It is further submitted that the appellant has already undergone more than 5 years and 5 months of incarceration out of the total sentence awarded. Learned counsel further submits that similar placed co-accused Dharamveer @ Neetu and Guddu @ Karamveer have been enlarged on bail. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Bhavana Dubey, Sarvesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : Deepak Dubey, G.A. Juvenile X Minor .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. .....Respondent(s) 4. Learned counsel for the respondent 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 crime, hence he is not entitled for bail. 5. 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." 6. 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. CRLA No. 9836 of 2025 2 7. Plea of bail raised by juvenile cannot be rejected in a mechanical manner. While considering the parameter provided in Section 12 of the Act, nature of offence, role played by the juvenile in committing the offence, his family background, his association with known or unknown criminals or bad elements of society, number of person named in the occurrence and future carrier of juvenile should also be taken into consideration by Juvenile Justice Board or court concerned in addition to the other factors. 8. In this case the appellant was aged about 17 years 6 months and 4 days at the time of occurrence. Admittedly the appellant was juvenile at the time of occurrence. No material is available on record whereby it can be presumed that the appellant was in association of any criminal or bad elements. 9. From perusal of impugned judgement and order passed by the appellate Court as well as passed by the Board, it transpires that both the Courts below have passed the impugned judgement and orders in cursory manner. The impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside. 10. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 16.09.2025 is hereby set aside. 11. Let the appellant-X Minor s/o Late Arjun Singh through his legal guardian/mother Maheshwari Devi be released on bail in the aforesaid criminal case and be given into her custody on furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of her relatives each in like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board concerned on the following conditions. (i)That, legal guardian/ Maheshwari Devi (mother) 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 legal guardian/ Maheshwari Devi (mother) shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. April 3, 2026 P. Pandey CRLA No. 9836 of 2025 3 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad