Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75132 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6135 of 2024 Revisionist :- Juvenile X Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Wahid Jamal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1. 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 18.10.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge, POCSO Court No. 1 Aligarh in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2024 (Juvenile Vs. State of U.P.), and against order dated 02.09.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh in Case Crime No. 234 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C., police station Kwarsi, district Aligarh, whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer of bail of accused-revisionist. 2. As per office report dated 16.03.2025 notice has been served upon opposite party No. 2, but no one has put in appearance on his behalf. 3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the record. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that a first information report was lodged by the complainant on 01.04.2024 for the alleged offence under Section 302 I.P.C. against Anas and his friends regarding murder of his son Qasim. Revisionist is not named in the F.I.R. As per the F.I.R. version, there is no eye-witness of the incident. F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of suspicion. During investigation, complicity of co-accused Sabeel and the revisionist came into light. As per the case of the prosecution, the role of inflicting knife injury has been assigned to co-accused Sabeel and revisionist has been assigned the role of catching hold the deceased. Co-accused Sabeel has been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.11.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34286 of 2024. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 01.04.2024 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 07.08.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 17 years, 08 months and 09 days on the date of alleged incident. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 02.04.2024. 6. 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. 7. It is further being emphasized that the revisionist does not have any criminal antecedent to his credit. 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 Child) Act, 2015. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State vehemently opposed the present revision. It has thus been submitted, 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 Child) Act, 2015. 9. Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is no adverse report of District Probation Officer, Aligarh against the revisionist. 10. 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:- (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. 11. 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 18.10.2024 and 02.09.2024 are hereby set aside. 12. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed. 13. Let the revisionist Juvenile X, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Y 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 :- 8.5.2025 Kashifa Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad