Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2042 Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1344 of 2023 Revisionist :- Juvenile Delinquent-X Of Case Crime No. 48/2023 Thru. His Maternal Grandmother Y Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Prashant Vikram Singh,Akshaya Pratap Singh,Dhananjay Kumar Singh,Ramakar Shukla,Shivam Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anoop Kumar,Mohd. Khurshid Akhtar,Sudhir Kumar Misra 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 31.10.2023 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Addl. Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.3, Sultanpur in Crl. Appeal No.138 of 2023 Roshan Yadav versus State of U.P. and another as well as order dated 5.10.2023 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur in Bail application moved in case crime No.48 of 2023 under sections 302, 394, 34, 120-B, 412 I.P.C., P.S. Munshiganj, district Amethi 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.It is alleged in the prosecution case that while the complainant returned home from Shahgarh on 20.3.2023, he found his wife Maya Devi aged about 64 years dead in the courtyard. Her neck was cut by sharp edged weapon by some unknown accused. 4.Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has been falsely implicated by the investigating officer. There is no eye-witness to the alleged incident. Even there was no eye- witness when the accused was arrested after three days of the incident on 23.3.2023. It is submitted that to fill up the gap in the investigation, the investigating officer has recorded statement of the brother of the complainant after 22 days, who gave last seen evidence to the effect that he saw the applicant along with co-accused Ankush Yadav entering into the house of the deceased. The revisionist has been implicated only on suspicion. No reason has been assigned as to why statement of brother of the complainant has been recorded after such a delay by the investigating officer. Considering this aspect of the matter, the co-accused Ankush Yadav has been released on bail vide order dated 13.5.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bail No.85 of 2024. It is next submitted that the revisionist is a juvenile. 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 have wrongly rejected the bail application while relying on the report of District Probation Officer. It is further submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board and also the appellate court while rejecting the bail application(s) overlooked 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; rather contrary to it, the District Probation Officer has opined that the revisionist has been found to be lacking in discipline and moral education, and after giving moral and proper education under the protection of his family, the behaviour of the revisionist can be improved. Except this, his physical condition and character were found normal and satisfactory. 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. 5. 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. 6. A perusal of the record, particularly social investigation report of the District Probation Officer which has been prepared on a printed cyclostyled Proforma-6 instead of adverting to his duties as provided under Rule 64 read with Rules 10 and 11 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children ) Model Rules, 2016 shows that it is a cryptic report and on the basis of such report, the revisionist juvenile cannot be permitted to be detained in the Child Care Home. 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. 7. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, 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 :- 10.1.2025 kkb/ Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench