Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25700 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1369 of 2024 Revisionist :- Dilip Kumar Yadav Thru. His Mother Smt. Sugau Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Arjun Kumar Kaushal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aman Singh Bhadoriya,Jitendra Vikram,Vandana Sharma Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Arjun Kumar Kaushal, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. 2. The instant revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, has been filed challenging the order dated 17.10.2024, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/FTC-I, Sultanpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2024 - Dilip Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Another, arising out of Case Crime No. 78 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Jagdishpur, District - Amethi, thereby criminal appeal of revisionist has been rejected and order dated 30.09.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur has been upheld whereby the bail application of the applicant- revisionist has been rejected. Further prayer for releasing the revisionist on bail has been made. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is an accused in Case Crime No. 78 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. It is submitted that the revisionist and prosecutrix were in physical relationship and same is evident from the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated that she is studying in Class 12th and is in relationship with the revisionist. It has been further stated that the prosecutrix had gone alongwith the revisionist with her consent to Dehradoon and also got married with the revisionist with her consent. It is next submitted that the revisionist is in custody since 30.03.2024 and has spent one year in custody. He has also drawn attention of this Court towards the report of the District Probation Officer, Sultanpur wherein it has been recorded that revisionist's conduct has been good during his custody and also that he does not have any criminal history. Lastly it has been submitted that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2015") provides that bail may be considered to a child. Section 18 of the Act, 2015 provides that the child below the age of 16 years, if has committed a heinous offence, may be kept in custody in a Home for a period of three years. In the present case, the revisionist is in jail for nearly two years and six months. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Authority both have not found the case of the present revisionist fit for granting bail. However, so far as the provisions of Section 12 of the Act are concerned and the report of Probationary Officer is concerned, he has nothing to say. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the material on record and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and also looking into the period of incarceration as well as report of the District Probation Officer, I am of the opinion that revisionist has made out a case for grant of bail. 7. In view of above, the impugned order dated 17.10.2024, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/FTC-I, Sultanpur as well as order dated 30.09.2024, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur, are hereby set aside. 8. The revision is allowed. 9. Let the revisionist Dilip Kumar Yadav (Juvenile) be released on bail in Case Crime No. 78 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Jagdishpur, District - Amethi, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions :- (i) The parents/guardians of the revisionist will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail, the juvenile will not be permitted to get into contact or association with any known or unknown criminal or exposed to any moral or physical danger and will not indulge in any criminal activity and they will make best efforts for improvement of the juvenile (ii) The revisionist and his parents/guardians shall remain present before the Board/trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against the juvenile under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) 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 revisionist 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. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and proceed against the revisionist in accordance with law. 11. The Court below is directed to sent the bail bonds and list of sureties submitted by the revisionist, to this Court for keeping them on record. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench