Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87641 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1188 of 2025 Revisionist :- X Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Alok Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1. The present criminal revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been against the judgment and order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Children Court, Shamli in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2024 and against order dated 22.11.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Shamli at Kairana in Case Crime No. 327 of 2024 (State Vs. X), under Sections 376AB, 363, 323 I.P.C. and Section 5m/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, Police Station Kairana, District Shamli, whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer of bail of accused-revisionist. 2. Despite service of notice upon opposite party No. 2, no one has put in appearance on his behalf. 3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the record. 4. As per prosecution case, in brief, the complainant who is father of the victim got a first information report lodged on 13.06.2024 with regard to an incident which took place with his minor daughter aged about three years for the alleged offence under Sections 363, 354, 354(kha), 323 I.P.C. and Section 9m, 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against the revisionist with the allegations inter alia that on 13.06.2024 his daughter was going to Madarsa, the revisionist took her to nearby building of Primary School and assaulted her. He misbehave with the victim and tore her clothes. 5. During investigation, statements under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. of the victim have been recorded in which she has made allegation of committing misdeed with her giving vivid description of the incident, thereafter, Section 376AB I.P.C. has also been added. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist, assailing the impugned orders, submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 13.06.2024 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 03.10.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 15 years, 03 months and 27 days, on the date of alleged incident. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 14.06.2024. 7. It is further being emphasized that the revisionist does not have any criminal antecedent to his credit. It is further submitted that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in this case. In the medical examination report of the victim no injury was found. The F.I.R. was lodged after delay of 16 hours. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no material on record for believing that the release of revisionist is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, psychological danger, therefore, aforesaid impugned orders are not sustainable and liable to be set aside and revisionist is entitled to be released on bail in view of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State vehemently opposed the present revision by contending that merely because the revisionist is a juvenile, it would not entitle him to bail without going into the gravity of the offence and the nature of the crime. Much emphasis has been given by contending that the revisionist is a person of hardened criminal mind and is also an imminent danger to the public at large. It is also contended that the bail sought for has been rightly refused in view of Section 12(1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015. 9. Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the Court has to see whether the opinion of the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and orders are in consonance with the provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Section 12 of the aforesaid Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile. They are:- (i) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or (ii) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or (iii) that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 10. Having gone through the record, this Court finds that the victim is minor child aged about three years. The F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the victim after giving vivid description of the incident by the victim and when her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded she again explained about the incident happened to her and supported the prosecution case. In the matter of bail of juvenile, the Court has to see literally through a prism having three angles, i.e. firstly, the angle of welfare and betterment of the child itself, secondly, the demands of justice to the victim and her family and thirdly, the concerns of society at large. I also find that the offence committed with the minor victim aged about three years is heinous in nature. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, in case revisionist is released on bail, then his release would defeat the ends of justice. 11. In view of the above, the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are not erroneous and cannot be said to be unsustainable. The aforesaid impugned orders are not liable to be interfered with, which are wholly impeccable. 12. As a fall out and consequence of the above, the present criminal revision lacks merit and is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 Kashifa Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad