Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75774 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 204 of 2024 Revisionist :- X- Juvenile Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anurag Vajpeyi,Praveen Kumar Singh,Santosh Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. The present criminal revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14.12.2023 passed by Juvenile Court/ Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional District and Session Judge, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 2023 and against order dated 10.04.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi in Case Crime No. 393 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 307, 302, 34 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, police station Sigra, District Varanasi whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer of bail of accused-revisionist. Despite service of notice upon the complainant/ informant, no one has put in appearance on his behalf. Hence, this Court proceeds to hear this matter on merit. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the record. As per the prosecution case, in brief, complainant Rudresh Kumar Singh got a first information report lodged on 13.10.2022 with regard to an incident which took place on 12.10.2022 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 307, 302, 34 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act against 17 accused persons, namely, Mantu Saroj, Rahul Saroj, Abhishek, Anoop Saroj, Dinesh Pal, Suresh Saroj, Ganesh, Aaryan Saroj, Shyam Babu, Suraj, Vishal Rajbhar, Vikas Rajbhar, Manish Pandey, Pawan, Sahil, Sandeep Gupta, Ramesh and one unknown person making allegation of assault against them and it is the case of the prosecution that due to assault by the accused persons, Pashupati Nath Singh and Raj Kumar Singh (father and brother of the informant) received injuries and thereafter Pashupati Nath Singh was taken to hospital where he was declared brought dead by the doctor. Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 12.10.2022 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 27.02.2023 of Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi treating the age of revisionist as 17 years, 08 months and 11 days on the date of alleged incident. It is next submitted that aforesaid order declaring the revisionist as juvenile has attained finality because the same has not been challenged by the opposite party No.2. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 16.10.2022. As to the offence alleged, it is submitted that the revisionist has falsely been implicated in the case with ulterior motive. In this regard, it is further stated that proper investigation was not conducted by the police and thus the revisionist had wrongly been charged with the offence. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that statement of injured Raj Kumar Singh was recorded, in which he has assigned specific role of causing injury to Mantu Saroj, Ramesh Pal, Suresh Saroj, Suraj Yadav, Akash @ Aryan Saroj @ Tamatar, Sandeep Gupta, Ganesh, Anuj @ Babu Saroj, Manish Pandey, Shyam Babu Rajbhar, Abhishek and Vikas Rajbhar @ Bhardwaj, who have been granted bail. The case of present revisionist stands on better footing than that of aforesaid co-accused. It is further being emphasized that after arrest of the revisionist in the present case, he has been falsely implicated alongwith co-accused Rahul on 16.10.2022 in two criminal cases bearing Case Crime No. 0397 of 2022, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Sigra, District Varuna (Commissionerate Varanasi) and Case Crime No. 0399 of 2022, under Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Sigra, District Varuna (Commissionerate Varanasi). Lastly, it is submitted that there is no material on record for believing that the release of revisionist is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, psychological danger, therefore, aforesaid impugned orders are not sustainable and liable to be set aside and revisionist is entitled to be released on bail in view of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Learned A.G.A. representing the State vehemently opposed the present revision. It has thus been submitted that merely because the revisionist is a juvenile it would not entitle him to bail without going into the gravity of the offence, the nature of the crime. It is also contended that the bail sought for has been rightly refused in view of Section 12(1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is no adverse report of District Probation Officer, Varanasi against the revisionist. I also find that co-accused Mantu Saroj, Ramesh Pal, Suresh Saroj, Suraj Yadav, Akash @ Aryan Saroj @ Tamatar, Sandeep Gupta, Ganesh, Anuj @ Babu Saroj, Manish Pandey, Shyam Babu Rajbhar, Abhishek and Vikas Rajbhar @ Bhardwaj, under similar accusation, have been granted bail. 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 Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Section 12 of the aforesaid Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile. They are:- (1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or (2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or (3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Considering the facts of the case as noted above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are erroneous and cannot be sustained. The aforesaid impugned orders dated 14.12.2023 and 10.04.2023 are hereby set aside. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed. Let the revisionist "X-Juvenile" involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his father, namely, Surendra Saroj, who is his natural guardian with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses; (ii) The revisionist 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 revisionist through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Shubham Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad