Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14222 Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 60 of 2025 Revisionist :- Juvenile Thru. His Mother And Natural Guardian Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. The present criminal revision has been filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Sultanpur, in Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2024, Jeetu Kashyap alias Jitendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. whereby dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the revisionist confirming the impugned order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board Sultanpur whereby the bail application moved by the revisionist in Case Crime No.119 of 2024 under Sections 137(2), 64 of BNS 2023 and Secitons 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Stationn Bandhua Kala, District Sultanpur has been rejected. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the respondent State. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that a perusal of the statement of the victim under section 180 and 183 BNSS shows that she, on conversation with the revisionist, came to the revisionist on her own, thus, she was consenting party. A perusal of the medico legal examination report of the victim shows that in the external and internal genital examination, no mark of injury has been found as per the comments of the doctor, however, while giving statement under Section 180 BNSS the doctor without any basis has opined that the victim has been raped. The opinion given by the doctor is contrary to the medico legal opinion, which is on record, which goes to several pages. The DPRO while giving its report has not given any adverse comment so as to dis-entitle the revisionist to be enlarged on bail. It is not in dispute that the applicant is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Act. Under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the prayer for bail of a juvenile may be rejected 'if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice'. Thus, Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 lays down only three contingencies in which the bail can be refused to juvenile. These are: (i) If his 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. It is submitted that in the present case, no such contingency as provided in the Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is present, rather contrary to it, the District Probation Officer has opined that after giving psychological treatment and proper education, the revisionist can be made independent and no adverse material is available against the revisionist. It is next submitted on behalf of the revisionist that bail to a child in reference to Section 12 of the Act in conflict with law is a rule and denial is an exception. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on a judgement and order dated 11.1.2021 passed by this court in Criminal Revision No.332 of 2019 Kuldeep Vishwakarma (Minor) through his father Swami Nath vs. State of U.P. and another. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. does not dispute the legal proposition and submits that the court may pass appropriate order in the best interest of the child. Perused the record. Perusal of the record shows that the age of the revisionist has been assessed by the Juvenile Justice Board as 15 years, 4 months and 8 days on the date of occurrence. The revisionist is in Observation Home since 30.8.2024. Considering the DPRO report, nature and gravity of the offence so also there is no material on record to indicate that in case the revisionist is released, it would bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice, the period of incarceration gone into by the revisionist juvenile, the statement of the victim under Section 180 and 183 BNSS, the medico legal examination report, I am of the opinion that release of the juvenile may not attract the factors mentioned in the provisions of sub-section 1 of section 12. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the criminal revision is liable to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 13.12.2024 (supra) and order dated 18.11.2024 (supra) are set aside. The revisionist is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur subject to the condition that parent of the revisionist will take care of his education and betterment and will not allow to indulge him in any criminal activity and will keep constant check on his activities, as also in case there is no legal impediment. Both the sureties are directed to be close relatives of the revisionist juvenile. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench