HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3784 of 2026 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J. 1. Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant is taken on record. 2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 101(5) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (hereinafter referred as J.J. Act) against order dated 21.05.2025, passed by Children Court/ learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Kasganj in Bail Application No.501 of 2025 (Juvenile Vs. State), arising out of Case Crime No.816 of 2022, under Sections 363, 364, 506 IPC, P.S.- Kasganj, District- Kasganj, whereby the bail application filed on behalf of appellant/ juvenile has been rejected. 3. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Onkar Nath, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that impugned order is against facts and law and thus liable to be set aside. The informant has lodged first information report on 24.12.2022 regarding disappearance of his minor daughter and now she is not traceable. It was submitted that the victim could not be recovered and ultimately the police have submitted charge- sheet under Sections 363, 506, 364 IPC. The prosecution case is based only Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Arun Kumar Vishvakarma, Santosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Onkar Nath Juvenile Xxx .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) on the allegation that appellant/ juvenile has allegedly made an extra-judicial confession to the effect that he has thrown the victim girl into the canal. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that there is no credible evidence against appellant to connect him with the incident in question. Appellant was declared juvenile, as on the date of incident his age was found 16 years 5 months and 14 days. The case of appellant/ juvenile was referred by Juvenile Justice Board to the Children Court, where appellant was tried as an adult. Appellant/ juvenile is in custody since 28.03.2023. It was submitted that a case for grant of bail is made out. 5. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the appeal and submitted that there are serious allegations against appellant. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that police have not investigated the case properly and earlier informant has approached this Court for fair investigation. Police have not recovered victim girl and charge-sheet was submitted in an arbitrary manner without recovery of victim. The attending facts and evidence show that appellant/ juvenile was involved in the said incident and he has disappeared the victim girl. It was submitted that as victim could not be recovered so far, thus no case for bail is made out and there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned order. 6. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record. 7. It appears from record that the informant has lodged first information report on 24.12.2022, alleging that his minor daughter aged about 15 years used to talk with appellant on phone and on 19.12.2022 he has enticed her away and since then his daughter is not traceable. It appears that during investigation victim could not be recovered. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted in month of June, 2023. The appellant was declared juvenile by order dated 07.03.2025, as at the time of incident his age was 16 years 5 months and 14 days. In view of provisions of Section 15 of J.J. Act, the case of appellant was referred by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kasganj to Children Court/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kasganj for trial of appellant as an CRLA No. 3784 of 2026 2 adult. The appellant/ juvenile has moved an application for bail, which has been rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 21.05.2025. 8. At this stage, it would be appropriate to quote the provisions of Section - 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, which read as under :- "12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law.-- (1) when any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or 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 any fit person: Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds care of for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision. (2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board. (3) when such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order. (4) when a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail." 9. In view of law laid down in case of Sachin Yadav (Juvenile) Vs State of U.P. and Another (2019: AHC: 93790), it is clear that the bail of a child aged between 16-18 years, who is being tried by Children Court as an adult, has to be considered at the parameter of provisions of Section - 12 of Juvenile Justice Act. From perusal of the Section - 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, it is clear that a juvenile is entitled to bail, notwithstanding the gravity CRLA No. 3784 of 2026 3 of the offence and the bail application can be refused only when there are 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. This Court in a number of judgements has categorically held that bail to juvenile can only be refused, if any of the above-stated ground exists. In the present case, learned trial court has not stated about any material on what basis this conclusion has been drawn that in case, appellant is released on bail, his release may bring him into association with known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 10. The prosecution case is that the appellant/ juvenile used to talk with minor daughter of informant and that on 19.12.2022 he has enticed her away and since then she is not traceable. As stated above, victim could not be recovered during investigation. The investigation has already been concluded in the year 2023. It appears that there is no eye-witness of the alleged incident and prosecution case is mainly based on the alleged extra- judicial confession made by the appellant before the informant and others as mentioned in supplementary statements of informant and other witnesses. As per said extra-judicial confession appellant/ juvenile has told that victim girl was pressurizing him to marry with her and that on 19.12.2022 he has enticed and took her to the canal and he pushed her into canal. As stated above, in such matters gravity of the offence is not a ground to reject the bail application of a juvenile. There is nothing to show that the release of appellant/ juvenile on bail, is likely to bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. Considering all these facts, it appears that the trial Court has committed error by rejecting bail application of the appellant/ juvenile. 11. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 is set aside. Let the appellant - Juvenile 'Xxx' be released on bail in the aforesaid CRLA No. 3784 of 2026 4 criminal case and be given into custody of his guardian on furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned on the following conditions :- (i) That, the guardian of the appellant will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail that 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 career. (ii) That, the appellant and his guardian shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. (iii) That, the appellant and his guardian shall not indulge in any criminal or unlawful activities and will not try to contact or otherwise influence the informant or any witness of the case. 12. The trial Court is directed to expedite the proceedings of trial and to conclude the same as early as possible. 13. Appeal is allowed in above terms. September 22, 2026 'SP'/- CRLA No. 3784 of 2026 5 (Raj Beer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad