Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8434 Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 584 of 2024 Revisionist :- Juvenile X Thru. His Natural Guardian/Mother Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- O.P. Tiwari,Prabhakar Kumar Tiwari,Smriti 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 10.5.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Unnao in Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2024 and order dated 1.4.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board District Unnao in Case Crime No.171 of 2023. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the respondent State. Service of notice to respondent no.2 is deemed to be sufficient. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the victim was a consenting party which is evident from her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. Although the victim is alleged to be pregnant, however, no DNA test has been conducted. The victim has made improvement while giving statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the Counter Affidavit date of birth of the victim is alleged to be 25.8.2006 in paragraph 4 of the Counter Affidavit and according to that she is around 17 years of age the victim has attained the age of consent. The applicant has been falsely implicated. It is submitted on behalf of the revisionist that the age of the revisionist has been assessed by the Juvenile Justice Board as 17 years, 4 months and 19 days on the date of occurrence. The revisionist is in custody since 25.9.2023. The report of the District Probation officer, Unnao is also in favour of the juvenile/revisionist. The physical condition has been found normal. No social or economic adversity has been found and the mental state has been found better than normal. 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. Perusal of the DPRO report so also the bail orders of the co-accused persons, named above, role assigned to the present revisionist, 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, 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 10.5.2024(supra) and order dated 1.4.2024 (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, Unnao 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 :- 10.2.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench