Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9869 Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1222 of 2023 Revisionist :- Juvenile 'X' Thru His Father Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sachin Tiwari,Avinash Mishra,Bal Krishna Dwivedi,Gyan Singh,Shikha Pathak 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 12.7.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Pratapgarh in bail No.21 of 2023 and order dated 20.10.2023 passed by special Judge (POCSO Act)/Children Court, Pratapgarh in Crl. Appeal No.94 of 2023, arising out of case rime No.169 of 2023 under section 376 I.P.C., P.S. Kandhai, district Pratapgarh 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 statement of the victim under section 164 CrPC suffers from improvement. As per ossification test, the age of victim is 17 to 18 years. The revisionist juvenile was 17 years and nine months old at the time of occurrence. There is no injury found in the medico-legal examination of the victim, although she was medically examined on the very next date. The incident is allegedly occurred in the agricultural field. It is alleged by the victim in her statement under section 164 CrPC that she was beaten by kicks, still there is no injury on the body of the victim. The DPRO has not given any adverse remark. The Juvenile Justice Board has also declared the revisionist as Juvenile. 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 as also the fact that the revisionist is in confinement since 28.5.2023, the criminal revision is liable to be and is hereby allowed. The orders impugned 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 :- 14.2.2025 kkb/ Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench