Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27464 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 908 of 2021 Revisionist :- Ankit Minor Thru. His Mother Rama Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Neera Yadav,Ajeet Gupta,Anand Kumar Srivastava,Anju Tripathi,Ashutosh Tiwari,Firoz Ahmad Khan,Manjusha Kapil,Prashant Dubey,Shailendra Kumar Tripathi,Shailesh Kumar Pathak,Umesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Verma,Bhairav Datt Sharma,Manoj Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite parties. 2. Present criminal revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.11.2021, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge-IIIrd (POCSO Act), Faizabad in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2021 - 'Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another' thereby rejecting the appeal preferred by the revisionist against order dated 11.10.2021, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ayodhya/Faizabad in Case Crime No.302 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 302, 120-B/34 of IPC and Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station - Inayat Nagar, District - Ayodhya/Faizabad thereby bail application of the revisionist has been rejected. In the present criminal revision both the orders have been assailed, and prayer for releasing the revisionist on bail has been made. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that this is a case of cross FIR. An altercation took place on 18.05.2020 at about 10.30 AM between two groups at Village- Paliya Pratap Shah, P.S.- Inayat Nagar, District- Faizabad (Ayodhya). This incident took place after the Panchayat constituted for resolving the dispute related to land. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that in the incident, which took place at about 10.30 AM at aforesaid Village, from the side of the applicant, an application for lodging the FIR was given on 18.05.2020 itself, however, on account of influence of side opposite, the same was not lodged by the police station concerned. It was lodged subsequently to that of the FIR in issue. The FIR in issue bearing Case Crime No. 302/2020 was registered on 19.05.2020 at about 14.51 hours. The FIR of the applicant bearing Case Crime No. 303/2020 was registered subsequently on 19.05.2020 at 15.48 hours. As per the allegations of the FIR i.e. Case Crime No. 303/2020, Sushil Singh (informant of the FIR in issue) caused firearm injury to the husband of the informant namely Rama Devi of Case Crime No. 303/2020 and the role of exhortation has been assigned to Sani Singh. As per the version of the FIR i.e. Case Crime No. 302/2020, the role of causing firearm injury has been assigned to the present revisionist and the role of causing injury with weapon of steel has been assigned to Ram Deen @ Veeru. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the revisionist has falsely been implicated in this case as he is the eye-witness of the incident in regard to which the FIR i.e. Case Crime No. 303/2020 was registered from the side of the applicant. He has further submitted that as per the FIR in issue, revisionist caused firearm injury to the father of the informant as also to his own father Nanha Yadav. This story of prosecution is improbable and is liable to be disbelieved. No son would cause injury to his own father. In this case, no enmity has been shown by the prosecution so that the revisionist would cause injury to his father. He has further submitted that co-accused Rajnish Tiwari @ Rajjan Tiwari has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 13.01.2021 passed in Bail No. 5834 of 2020 while co-accused Ram Deen @ Veeru has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide its order dated 26.8.2021 passed in Bail Application No.5920 of 2021. It is further submitted that the revisionist is in jail since 20.5.2020 and thus has spent nearly five years in jail. 4. Accordingly considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the revisionist has been in jail since 20.5.2020 and has spent nearly five years in jail. We have also perused the report of the Probationary Officer and do not find any such material so as to enable us to decline the bail of the revisionist. 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, the 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. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate 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 the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is true that a juvenile offender is not entitled as of right to be enlarged on bail, irrespective of any other fact or circumstances, however, it also cannot be denied that in view of specific and special legislative intent and intervention, refusal of bail in the case of a juvenile may be made only for specific reasons and circumstances. Otherwise, a general legislative presumption does appear to exist under the scheme of the Act that the welfare of alleged juvenile offender would be better served without he being confined for long duration. Here, the revisionist has remained in juvenile home for last ten months. 8. This Court has also gone through the report of Juvenile Justice Board, who have returned adverse report against the revisionist for releasing him on bail. It is submitted that the said report is contested by learned counsel for the revisionist by submitting that it is devoid of any judicial sanctity and hence cannot be relied upon. 9. The Court has to see whether the opinion of the appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and orders are in consonance with the provisions 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. 10. Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail in Section 12 of the aforesaid Act. Though the prayer for bail of the revisionist has been opposed by learned counsel for the opposite party/State, but could not demonstrate from the record that there existed any of the grounds on which bail application of a juvenile could be rejected keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. 11. Considering the above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board are erroneous and cannot be sustained. The impugned orders dated 24.11.2021 and 11.10.2021 are hereby set aside. The revisionist has made out a case for his release on bail. 12. Accordingly, present criminal revision is allowed. 13. Let the revisionist "Ankit (minor)" involved in Case Crime No.302 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 302, 120-B/34 of IPC and Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station - Inayat Nagar, District - Ayodhya/Faizabad, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his mother Rama Devi, 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, threaten the witnesses or in any manner contact the prosecutrix during course of trial; (ii) The revisionist though 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. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the IPC. (iv) The revisionist or his family members shall not attempt to make any contact with the prosecutrix or her family members. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 9.5.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench