Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4241 Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1110 of 2024 Revisionist :- Juvenile X In Case Crime No. 160/2024 Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Sachin Kumar Srivastava,Arvind Kumar, Tushar Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 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 17.8.2024, passed by Children Court/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2024 crime No.160 of 2024 under sections 376AB, 504, 506 I.P.C., 5M/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Antu, district Pratapgarh and order dated 12.6.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in case No.91 of 2024. 2. Heard Mr. Tushar Jain, Advocate holding brief for learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that at the time of incident, age of the juvenile has been found to be 15 years 4 months and 20 days. Statement of the victim under section 161 and 164 CrPC suffers from improvement. It is submitted that a perusal of the statement of the victim under section 164 CrPC does not make out a case for the offence under section 376 I.P.C. There is no corroborative material found in the medico legal examination of the victim. The revisionist has no criminal history. It is further submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board and also the appellate court while rejecting the bail application(s) overlooked the 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 17.8.2024(supra) and order dated 12.6.2024(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