HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8846 of 2026 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 101(5) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred by the appellant with a prayer to set aside the judgement and order dated 11.08.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kasganj in Bail Application -No. 1083 of 2026 (Juvenile X Vs. State), arising out of Case Crime No.81/2026, under Sections 70(2), 127(2), 352, 351(3) of BNS and Section 5g/6(1) of POCSO Act, Police Station Soron, District Kasganj. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that; (i) the applicant/appellant was a juvenile aged about 17 years on the date of alleged incident and he is in jail since 11.03.2021. (ii) the applicant has been falsely implicated; (iii) there is no specific or strong objection raised in the DPO report, other than the general and vague observations; (iv) there is no criminal history of the applicant; (v) there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial; (vi) the appellant has remained confined in the child observation home for an unduly long period of time; Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Narendra Kumar, Sushil Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Juvenile X .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) (vii) none of the grounds contemplated under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are available, to deny the bail to the applicant. (viii) therefore, the impugned orders have been assailed as erroneous and contrary to law. (ix) co-accused Pushpendra has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.08.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.26874 of 2026 (Pushpendra Versus State of U.P. and 3 others). 4. Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the present criminal appeal. It is submitted, the incident reported is true and it is wrong to say that the allegations made against the applicant are false, and/are motivated. Also, reliance has been placed on the findings recorded in the bail rejection orders to submit that the instant appeal may be dismissed. 5. It is not in dispute that the applicant is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Act. Under Section 12 of the Act, the prayer for bail of a juvenile may 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 psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice'. 6. The court has to see whether the opinion of the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and orders are in consonance with the provision of the Act. Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail may be refused to a juvenile offender. These are:- (i) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or (ii) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or (iii) that his release would defeat the ends of justice? 7. Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the CRLA No. 8846 of 2026 2 bail. It is not a relevant factor while considering to grant bail to the juvenile. It has been so held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB). It has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions of this court. Thus, it remains largely undisputed that the applicant - was a juvenile on the date of occurrence; does not appear to be prone to criminal proclivity or criminal psychology, in light of the observations of the D.P.O; does not have a criminal history; has been in confinement for an unduly long period of time, in as much as the trial has not concluded within time frame contemplated by the Act. Even otherwise, there does not appear to exist any factor or circumstance mentioned in section 12 of the Act as may disentitle the applicant to grant of bail, at this stage. The father of the applicant undertakes to address the statutory concerns expressed in Section 12 of the Act, as to the safety and well being of the applicant, upon his release. 8. In view of the above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court concerned 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, the order cannot be sustained. The impugned order dated 11.08.2026 is hereby set aside. 9. In view of the observations made above, the present criminal appeal is allowed. Let the appellant, Juvenile X, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties each of like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (i) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses; (ii) The appellant 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 abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law; (iii) The appellant through guardian shall remain present before the trial CRLA No. 8846 of 2026 3 Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code/269 B.N.S.S. 10. Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate the order to the Child Observation Home concerned within a week. September 30, 2026 PS CRLA No. 8846 of 2026 4 (Tej Pratap Tiwari,J.) Digitally signed by :- POOJA SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad