Prolonged juvenile detention and stagnant trial progress justify bail despite serious charges.

The revisionist, who was a juvenile at the time of the alleged incident but was being tried as an adult before the Children’s Court, faced proceedings for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code arising from FIR registered at Police Station Kaliyar, District Haridwar.

The Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar rejected the revisionist’s bail application by order dated 01.02.2025, and the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. (POCSO), Haridwar affirmed that order in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2025 on 18.02.2025.

The revisionist challenged those orders under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

At the time of hearing, the revisionist had been in custody since 12.02.2024 for more than two and a half years.

Although there were 21 prosecution witnesses, only five had been examined, of whom three—including an alleged eyewitness—had been declared hostile; the State did not dispute the prolonged custody or the lack of substantial progress in the trial.

Whether the revisionist, being a juvenile at the time of the incident and having undergone more than two and a half years of incarceration without substantial progress in trial, was entitled to bail.

Whether the orders dated 01.02.2025 and 18.02.2025 rejecting the revisionist’s bail application ought to be set aside in exercise of the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The Court exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, relating respectively to murder, causing disappearance of evidence and acts done in furtherance of common intention.

In determining entitlement to bail, the Court considered the prolonged incarceration of the juvenile, the absence of substantial progress in trial, and the evidentiary circumstance that three of the five examined prosecution witnesses had turned hostile.

Bail was granted subject to safeguards requiring parental supervision, continuation of education, avoidance of contact with known criminals, abstention from criminal activity, and cooperation with the proceedings before the Juvenile Justice Board.

The Court acknowledged that the State had filed a charge-sheet and that the fact that certain witnesses had turned hostile did not, by itself, establish the revisionist’s innocence; the evidentiary merits remained matters for trial.

However, the revisionist had remained incarcerated since 12.02.2024, while only five of 21 prosecution witnesses had been examined and three of those five had been declared hostile.

Since there was no substantial progress and no reasonable indication that the trial would conclude soon, the Court treated the prolonged pre-trial detention, combined with the juvenile status of the revisionist and the delayed trial, as sufficient grounds for bail.

The Court therefore found that the revisionist deserved release subject to protective conditions.

The High Court set aside the judgment dated 18.02.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. (POCSO), Haridwar, and the order dated 01.02.2025 of the Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar.

The revisionist was directed to be released on bail upon the father/natural guardian furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board.

The release was made conditional upon pursuing studies, avoiding contact with known criminals, refraining from criminal activity, maintaining parental supervision, and appearing before the Board on each date unless personal appearance was exempted.