Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4264 Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 631 of 2024 Revisionist :- X Juvenile Thru. His Father Y Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Smriti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Kumar Singh Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 1. The revision petition has been filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to set aside order dated 18.3.2024, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri in case crime No.343 of 2023 under sections 302, 328, 504, 506 I.P.C., 3(1)Da, Dha and 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Hydrabad, district Lakhimpur Kheri and order dated 1.5.2024 passed by Special Judge, Children Court, Lakhimpur Kheri in criminal appeal No.38 of 2024 with a further prayer to release the revisionist on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, complainant's counsel and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that at the time of incident, the revisionist has been found to be 14 years 10 months and 8 days old. . The first information report has been lodged after delay of two months and 18 days via application under section 156(3) CrPC. It is submitted that the cause of death could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved. In the viscera report, organophasforus insecticide poison has been found in the body of deceased. It is submitted that the doctor in the statement under section 161 CrPC has opined that it appears to be a case of suspected poisoning of the deceased. It is submitted that there is no material against the revisionist except last seen evidence. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. The chain of circumstances is not complete. It is further submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board and also the appellate court while rejecting the bail application(s) overlooked the opinion of the district Probation Officer as also the true spirit and intent of the Legislature as provided under Section 12 of the Act. It is submitted that in the present case, no such contingency as provided in Section 12 of the Act is present and the release of the juvenile may not attract parameters as provided under the proviso to section 12(1) of Juvenile Justice Act. 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 judgment 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 versus State of U.P. and another. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate and complainant's counsel do not dispute the legal proposition and submits that the court may pass appropriate order in the best interest of the child. 5. 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. 6. In view of what has been stated hereinabove as also the fact that the revisionist is in jail since 23.12.2023, the criminal revision is liable to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 18.3.2024(supra) and order dated 1.5.2024(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 concerned Juvenile Justice Board subject to the condition that parent/guardian 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. Both the sureties are directed to be close relatives of the revisionist juvenile. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 kkb/ Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench