Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 148 of 2025 Revisionist :- Juvenile X Thru. His Elder Brother Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Akshay Kumar Singh,Palak Jawa,Shambhavi Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the respondent State. None appears on behalf of the complainant, although, notice is served. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the revisionist is taken on record. Learned counsel for the revisionist prays for and is permitted to amend the prayer clause to the extent of challenging the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board during course of the day. The present criminal revision has been filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the order dated 03.01.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, POCSO Court, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 39/2024 whereby dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the revisionist confirming the impugned order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board Ambedkar Nagar whereby the bail application moved by the revisionist in Case Crime No. 240/2024, under Sections 108 and 70(1) of BNS 2023 Police Stationn Rajesultanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar has been rejected. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that on the date of the incident, the revisionist was 17 years and 2 months and 28 days. In the initial information provided to the police for conducting the inquest, there was no allegation of gang rape; rather, it was reported as a case of suicide by the victim. Later on, improvement was made and FIR was lodged incorporating the allegation of gang rape. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident, and the revisionist has been implicated solely on the basis of hearsay evidence. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence to attract the ingredients of Section 108 and 70(1) of BNS. The revisionist has no prior criminal record. The DPRO, in its report, has not made any adverse remarks that would justify denying bail to the revisionist. 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 17 years, 2 months and 28 days on the date of occurrence. Perusal of the charge sheet, prima facie, shows that there is no material to attract ingredient of Section 108 and 70(1) BNS. The revisionist is in Observation Home since 18.08.2024 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, 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 03.01.2025 (supra) and order dated 25.11.2024 (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, Ambedkar Nagar 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 :- 11.3.2025 R.C. Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench