Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25229 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 414 of 2025 Revisionist :- X Minor, Thru. His Mother Smt. Raj Kumari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Neeraj Trivedi,Ravi Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. on behalf of State. 2. Learned A.G.A. has informed this Court that the notice has been served upon opposite party No.2 through Station House Officer, Nagram, Lucknow. 3. Present criminal revision has been filed against order dated 10.2.2025 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Lucknow in misc. case No.22 of 2025 and the judgment and order dated 10.4.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.50/2025 arising out of case crime No.301/2024, under Section 65(1), 332 (B), 351(3), BNSS, 3/4 (2) of POCSO Act and 67 I.T. Act, police station Nagram, District Lucknow wherein bail application as well as criminal appeal has been rejected. 4. It has been submitted that the revisionist is a juvenile and an accused under Section 65(1), 332 (B), 351(3), BNSS, 3/4 (2) of POCSO Act and 67 I.T. Act. In the present case a first information report was lodged by the complainant, who is father of the prosecutrix stating that the accused had approached his daughter who was alone in the house asking for a cigarette but at that time the shop was closed and consequently she refused to give the cigarette on which he forcefully imposed himself upon her and sexually assaulted her. The prosecutrix did not tell about this incident to anyone but after sometime it is mother of the prosecutrix who came to know of the said incident from her neighbourer who received the said information from the mobile in this regard and accordingly first information report was lodged. The statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS support the case of the prosecution. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has pressed the application for bail stating that the age of the revisionist is about 16 years and his further detention may be adverse to his academic career. Considering the fact that the revisionist/applicant is a juvenile his bail application has to be considered in light of the provisions of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 which is quoted as under:- "(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person: Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the persons release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision. (2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home 1[or a place of safety, as the case may be] in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order. (4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail." 6. Ordinarily, bail application of a juvenile has to be allowed as per the provisions of Section 12 (1) unless and until there appears to be a reasonable grounds to believe it would endanger the juvenile, defeat the ends of justice, or bring the juvenile into contact with known criminals. 7. In the present case, the report of District Probationary Officer is on record in which it has been stated that the family of the juvenile does not have any control over him and in the aforesaid circumstances, in case the accused is granted bail it may adversely affect his mental and physical condition and there is all likelihood of him being again involved in criminal activities apart from the fact that the charges against him are also grave. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the report of the District Probationary Officer, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of bail at this stage. Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected consequently the revision is also dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 1.5.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench