HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1210 of 2026 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE PRASHANT MISHRA-I, J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit is filed by learned counsel for the revisionist and it is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Rifaqat Hussain, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Zainul Abdin, 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 dated 16.12.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Moradabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 2025, (A vs. State of U.P.), judgment and order dated 17.01.2026, passed by the Learned Juvenile Court/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 1 Moradabad in Case Crime No. 241 of 2025, under Section 115(2) B.N.S and Section 3(a)/4(2) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station- Bhagatpur, District- Moradabad. 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. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the occurrence took place on 08.09.2025 and the FIR was lodged on 10.09.2025 after a delay of two days; no injury was caused to the victim. The Juvenile is in observation home since 11.09.2025. There is nothing in the District Probation Officer's report that if bail is granted to the juvenile he will be exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger. The medical evidence is also not in support of the prosecution story. 5. It is further submitted 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 Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ranveer Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Zainul Abdin A Minor .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) expose him to moral, physical or 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. It is submitted that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 08.09.2025 and the FIR was lodged on 10.09.2025. As per the FIR, it is alleged that the applicant has committed un-natural intercourse with the son of the informant. The victim in his statement under Section 180 BNSS has stated that when he was playing in the evening, the applicant/juvenile enticed him and committed un-natural intercourse with him. 10. 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. 11. Also, on perusal of the medical examination report of the victim/child there is no external injury seen at the time of examination; and as per the pathological report available on record, no alive or dead spermatozoa is seen. 12. 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. 13. In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The orders dated 16.12.2025 and 17.01.2026 in the aforesaid case are hereby set aside. 14. Let the applicant- A (Minor), 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: (i) The applicant be given into custody of his father. (ii)The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the CRLR No. 1210 of 2026 2 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. 1210 of 2026 3 (Prashant Mishra-I,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAURABH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad