The Allahabad High Court on Friday set aside the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and Special POCSO Court, Ballia, which had earlier denied bail to a 17-year-old accused. Justice Siddharth, while delivering the verdict on September 26, 2025, made it clear that the law treats juvenile cases with a different lens, focusing more on rehabilitation than punishment.
Background
The case stems from allegations under sections 363, 366, and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, along with provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The boy, identified only as “X” owing to his minor status, has been in a child protection home since August 2, 2024. His bail pleas had been repeatedly rejected-first by the Juvenile Justice Board in October 2024 and later by the appellate Special Judge in December 2024.
Read also: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Mother-Son Duo in Partnership Fraud Case
Counsel for the juvenile, Ch. Dil Nisar and Viresh Kumar Yadav, argued that the child had no prior criminal history, had already spent more than a year in confinement, and that the District Probation Officer’s report raised no specific objection against his release. “He has been falsely implicated,” the defence submitted, stressing that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon.
On the other side, the State’s counsel, supported by the complainant’s lawyer, insisted the charges were serious and claimed the bail rejection was justified.
Read also: Meghalaya High Court Upholds Old Pension Rights for Junior Divisional Accountants, Rejects State
Court’s Observations
The bench carefully examined Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, which lists three limited grounds for rejecting bail-risk of associating with known criminals, exposure to danger, or a situation where release would defeat the ends of justice.
Justice Siddharth remarked, “Gravity of the offence alone is not a ground to reject bail to a juvenile. This court has consistently held so.”
He also pointed out that prolonged detention in a child home without trial going forward would defeat the very purpose of the juvenile justice system.
Read also: Tripura High Court slams Railways for delay in land compensation, dismisses revision plea with costs
The court noted that the father of the boy had given an undertaking to ensure the minor’s safety, regular court attendance, and compliance with all conditions.
Decision
Finding the lower courts’ reasoning “erroneous and contrary to settled principles,” the High Court allowed the revision. The minor was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties of like amount.
Read also: Tripura High Court Orders HSCL to Pay Rs.1.26 Crore to Contractor for Arbitrary Contract Termination
The bail, however, came with strict conditions: the boy must not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence, his guardian must ensure no adjournments are sought during witness examination, and he must appear in court regularly.
With that, the court directed the registrar to communicate the order to the concerned Child Observation Home within a week.
Case Title: X (Juvenile) vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 6020 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 26 September 2025
