Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36671 Court No. - 9 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 685 of 2025 Revisionist :- Juvenile X Thru . His Father Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Suresh Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 18.03.2025 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur whereby, the bail application of the juvenile was rejected in Case Crime No.61 of 2024, under Sections 307 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station Peeparpur, District Amethi as well as, the order in appeal dated 09.05.2025, passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Sultanpur whereby the appeal was also dismissed. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that, in terms of the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., the allegation of use of a knife was made against the accused named in the F.I.R. Subsequently, the revisionist was also implicated and made an accused in the case. He draws my attention to the report of the District Probation Officer, which merely states that the juvenile lacks discipline. It also records that the child can be improved. 4. In light of the above, it is argued that, in terms of the mandate of Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2015), and the proviso thereto, bail is a matter of right and can be denied only if the conditions specified in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act, 2015 are made out, whereas no such material exists on record. 5. It is further argued that the co-accused, Kuldeep, in the same offence, has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 23.01.2025. He has further argued that the revisionist is not wanted in any other case and, thus, is entitled to the benefit of bail in terms of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 2015. 6. Considering the submissions made at the bar, the mandate of Section 12(1) of the Act, 2015 and the fact that the conditions specified with the proviso are missing and the report of the District Probation Officer, which is on record, the revisionist is entitled to be enlarged on bail. The present criminal revision deserves to be allowed. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision is allowed. The impugned orders dated 18.03.2025, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur, and 09.05.2025, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Sultanpur, are hereby set aside. 8. Let the revisionist be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence of witnesses and shall not commit any offence. (ii) The revisionist shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iii) The revisionist shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) In case, the revisionist misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (v) The revisionist shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. (Pankaj Bhatia, J) Order Date :- 27.6.2025 A.Dewal Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench