Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4124 Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 623 of 2023 Revisionist :- Vipin @ Vipin Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Harjeet Singh Chauhan,Akashdeep Shukla,Ashok Kumar Sharma,Lalu Prasad Bhatt,S.K. Singhaniya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suresh Kumar Gupta 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 27.4.2023 passed by Special Judge of Children Court/Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.11, District Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2023 and order dated 16.3.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhimpur Kheri in bail application No.31 of 2023 case crime No.465 of 2022 under section 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Haidrabad, district Lakhimpur Kheri with a further prayer to release the revisionist on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the victim was a consenting party. The allegations in the first information report and statement of the victim under sections 161 and 164 CrPC have been found false during medico legal examination. No evidence or corroborative material has been found to show that the victim at no point of time was pregnant. The revisionist has no criminal history. He is in jail since 4.1.2023. The Juvenile Justice Board has also declared the revisionist as Juvenile and at the time of incident, he was 16 years 2 months and 24 days old. It is submitted that no certificate showing age of the victim has been collected by the investigating officer nor the victim has been subjected to ossification test. The victim is, in fact, major. 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 does 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, the criminal revision is liable to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 27.4.2023(supra) and order dated 16.3.2023(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