Gravity Of POCSO Allegation Alone Can't Justify Denial Of Bail To Juvenile: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has granted bail to a juvenile accused in a POCSO case, observing that the gravity or seriousness of the alleged offence, by itself, is not a valid ground to deny bail to a child in conflict with law unless the case falls within the statutory exceptions contained in the proviso to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Justice Alok Mahra held that the courts below had rejected the juvenile's bail application on the basis of general apprehensions unsupported by any substantive material and that the record did not disclose the existence of any of the statutory exceptions warranting denial of bail.

The criminal revision application in question challenged the judgment and order dated March 20, 2026, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Dehradun, as well as the order dated May 6, 2026 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court (POCSO) whereby the juvenile's plea for bail had been rejected. 

The revisionist along with two co -accused was alleged to have enticed away a minor girl after administering an intoxicating substance in a cold drink and thereafter committed rape upon her.

Counsel for the revisionist primarily argued that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act mandates release of a child in conflict with law on bail unless the case falls within one of the three exceptions contained in the proviso, namely, where release is likely to bring the child into association with known criminals, expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice. It was contended that none of these statutory exceptions were attracted in the present case and that the courts below had denied bail solely due to the heinous nature of the allegations and speculative apprehensions that the juvenile- revisionist might commit a similar offence or face danger upon release.

It was further submitted that the revisionist had remained in a Juvenile Home for about five years, the medical examination did not conclusively corroborate the prosecution case, and that the Forensic Science Laboratory report was still awaited. Importantly, it was also argued that the Social Investigation Report reflected that the child had no criminal antecedents, was not associated with any criminal gang or anti-social elements but rather possessed the potential for reformation and rehabilitation under parental supervision.

Accepting the submissions, the High Court observed:

“…this Court finds that the revisionist is admittedly a child in conflict with law. A perusal of the impugned orders does not reveal the existence of any material indicating that the case of the revisionist falls within any of the exceptions contemplated under the proviso to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The apprehensions recorded by the courts below are general in nature and are not founded upon any substantive material.

It is well settled that the gravity or seriousness of the alleged offence, by itself, is not a ground to deny bail to a juvenile unless the case is shown to fall within the statutory exceptions engrafted in the proviso to Section 12 of the Act”.

Consequently, holding that the revisionist was entitled to the statutory benefit of bail under Section 12 of the Act, the Court allowed the bail application and directed that the juvenile be released on bail upon his parents or guardian furnishing a personal bond to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, subject to such conditions as the Board may impose to ensure the child's proper care, supervision, education, rehabilitation and well-being.

The criminal revision was thus directed o be listed for final hearing.

Case: X v State of Uttarakhand [CRLR/471/2026]

Click Here To Read/Download Order