Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:101383 Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1608 of 2025 Revisionist :- X Juvenile Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Kalamuddin,M. A. Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dheeraj Kumar Yadav,G.A.,Hind Pratap Lal,Yasmeen Jahan Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Shri Hind Pratap Lal, appears on behalf of respondent no2. He informs that he has no instructions. Heard Shri M.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Hind Pratap Lal, learned counsel for the respondent no.2; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated 20.2.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Juvenile Court)/Additional Session Judge, Gyanpur, Bhadohi in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2025 and order dated 30.1.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bhadohi in Case Crime No. 196 of 2024 under Sections 137(2),70(2),103(1),238 read with 3(5) B.N.S and section 5(G)/6 POCSO Act Police Station Gopiganj District Bhadohi. The submission is that co-accused, Anuj Kumar Bind, has already been enlarged on bail vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9898 of 2025 on 16.4.2025 and the case of the revisionist stands on identical footing, hence the revisionist is also entitled for bail for the reasons given in bail application of co- accused on the ground of parity. The revisionist is in Child Protection Home since 18.9. 2024. Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the present criminal revision. It is submitted, the incident reported is true and it is wrong to say that the allegations made against the applicant are false, and/are motivated. Also, reliance has been placed on the findings recorded in the bail rejection orders to submit that the instant revision may be dismissed. It is not in dispute that the applicant is a juvenile and is entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Act. Under Section 12 of the Act, the prayer for bail of a juvenile may be rejected 'if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the juvenile is likely to 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'. 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 the Act. Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail may be refused to a juvenile offender. These 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? Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground to reject the bail. It is not a relevant factor while considering to grant bail to the juvenile. It has been so held by this Court in Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616(LB). It has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions of this court. Thus, it remains largely undisputed that the applicant - was a juvenile on the date of occurrence; does not appear to be prone to criminal proclivity or criminal psychology, in light of the observations of the D.P.O; does not have a criminal history; has been in confinement for an unduly long period of time, in as much as the trial has not concluded within time frame contemplated by the Act. Even otherwise, there does not appear to exist any factor or circumstance mentioned in section 12 of the Act as may dis- entitle the applicant to grant of bail, at this stage. The father of the applicant undertakes to address the statutory concerns expressed in section 12 of the Act, as to the safety and well being of the applicant, upon his release. In view of the above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are in conflict with the settled principle in law, for the purpose of grant of bail and are erroneous and contrary to the law laid down by this court. The impugned orders are, hereby, set aside. In view of the observations made above, the present criminal revision is allowed. Let the applicant, X-Juvenile, s/o Smt. Amravati Devi, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail, on his furnishing personal bond with two sureties each of like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses; (ii) The applicant through guardian shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law; (iii) The applicant through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate the order to the Child Observation Home concerned within a week. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Atul kr. sri. Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad