Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20751 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 121 of 2025 Revisionist :- Juvenile Thru. Natural Guardian (Grandfather) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Piyush Pathak,Vipul Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Piyush Pathak, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. 2. The instant revision under Section 438/442 of BNSS (previously U/S 397/401 Cr.P.C.) read with Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, has been filed challenging the order dated 06.01.2025, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Court (EC Act), Court No. 4, Sultanpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 2024 - Durgesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Another, arising out of Case Crime No. 176 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Jamo, District - Amethi, whereby the appeal of the applicant- revisionist has been rejected, and against order dated 16.12.2024, passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur thereby bail application of the revisionist has been rejected. Further prayer for releasing the revisionist on bail has been made. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the age of the prosecutrix as determined in her medical examination is about 18 years apart from the fact that she in her statement has admitted that revisionist and prosecutrix were in relationship for one year and according to the learned counsel for the revisionist the relationship between the prosecutrix and revisionist is consensual. It is also submitted that the revisionist is in jail since 14.07.2024 and has spent about nine months in custody. He has also drawn attention of this Court towards the report of the District Probation Officer, Sultanpur wherein it has been stated that revisionist has not criminal history and we do not find any adverse finding in respect to revisionist, he has further recorded that his conduct has been good during his incarceration and also that the revisionist does not have any criminal history. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2015") provides that bail may be considered to a child. Section 18 of the Act, 2015 provides that the child below the age of 16 years, if has committed a heinous offence, may be kept in custody in a Home for a period of three years. In the present case, the revisionist is in jail for nearly two years and six months. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Authority both have not found the case of the present revisionist fit for granting bail. However, so far as the provisions of Section 12 of the Act are concerned and the report of Probationary Officer is concerned, he has nothing to say. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the material on record and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and also looking into the period of incarceration as well as report of the District Probation Officer, I am of the opinion that revisionist has made out a case for grant of bail. 7. In view of above, the impugned order dated 06.01.2025, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Court (EC Act), Court No. 4, Sultanpur, as well as order dated 16.12.2024, passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur, are, hereby set aside. 8. The revision is allowed. 9. Let the revisionist Juvenile, through natural guardian be released on bail in Case Crime No. 176 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Jamo, District - Amethi, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions :- (i) The parents/guardians of the revisionist will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail, the juvenile will not be permitted to get into contact or association with any known or unknown criminal or exposed to any moral or physical danger and will not indulge in any criminal activity and they will make best efforts for improvement of the juvenile (ii) The revisionist and his parents/guardians shall remain present before the Board/trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against the juvenile under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the revisionist misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the revisionist fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and proceed against the revisionist in accordance with law. 11. The Court below is directed to sent the bail bonds and list of sureties submitted by the revisionist, to this Court for keeping them on record. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench