HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1161 of 2026 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE PRASHANT MISHRA-I, J. 1. Counter affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and they are taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the judgment and order 12.01.2026 passed by Special Judge, (POCSO Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Firozabad in Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 2025 (Juvenile "A" Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 312 of 2024 under Section 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station- Linepar, District- Firozabad. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is a juvenile and he has falsely been implicated in the case and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with the evidence in case of his release on bail. He next submitted that the FIR was lodged after a considerable delay and the applicant had no motive for committing offence as alleged in the FIR. The revisionist is in Observation Home since 29.10.2024. 5. It is further submitted that the other three co-accused, namely, Bhola @ Krishna, Faili @ Ramnaresh and Rahul have been released on bail by Co- ordinate Benches of this Court. The axe by which the alleged incident was caused was recovered from the co-accused Bhola @ Krishna. 6. The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that it is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (here-in-after referred to as 'Juvenile Justice Act'). It has been submitted that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act prayer for bail of a juvenile can 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 Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Virat Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Lalit Kumar Misra, G.A. Juvenile- A .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice'. It has been submitted that no such grounds are available on record to deny bail to the applicant. 7. This court is to see whether the opinion of the learned Trial Court recorded in the impugned judgment and orders are in consonance with the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) stated as above. 8. It has been submitted that gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration for refusing grant of bail to the juvenile as has been held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB) and it has been a consistent view of various courts. It has been submitted that there exists no material to justify rejection of bail on the grounds envisaged by Section 12 of the Act. 9. On the other hand learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the revisionist. 10. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that there is a criminal history of five cases of the revisionist. Also, he has caused grievous injuries to the father of the informant and after that he ran away. 11. Learned A.G.A. submitted that per the postmortem report the deceased sustained seven lacerated wounds, two incised wounds and four abrasions and cause of death is shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. 12. However, they could not demonstrate from the record that there existed any of the grounds on which bail application of a juvenile could be rejected keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. 13. Also, no motive has been given in the FIR regarding the incident. The alleged axe used for killing the deceased was said to have been recovered from the co-accused, namely, Bhola @ Krishna. The other co-accused persons, namely, Bhola @ Krishna, Faili @ Ramnaresh and Rahul have been released on bail by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 29.08.2025, 01.12.2025 and 11.12.2025 respectively. 14. 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. 15. In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The order dated 12.01.2026 in the aforesaid case is hereby set aside. 16. Let the applicant- Juvenile "A", involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: CRLR No. 1161 of 2026 2 (i) The applicant be given into custody of his father. (ii)The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses; (iii) The applicant 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 an abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law; (iv) The applicant through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. May 12, 2026 Saurabh CRLR No. 1161 of 2026 3 (Prashant Mishra-I,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAURABH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad