Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89399 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2777 of 2024 Revisionist :- Juvenile X Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Alauddin,Ram Pravesh Yadav,Surendra Mohan Mishra,Swatantra Kumar Rai 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 29.04.2024 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge, POCSO Act, Siddharth Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2024 (Delinquent Child "X" vs. State of U.P.) and against order dated 29.03.2024 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Siddharth Nagar in Case Crime No. 307 of 2023, under Sections 376(3), 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Siddharth Nagar, District Siddharth Nagar whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer of bail of accused- revisionist. 2-Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the record. 3-As per prosecution case in brief, complainant who is mother of the victim got a first information report lodged on 14.10.2023 for the offence under Sections 376 I.P.C. and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act against the revisionist making allegation inter-alia that the revisionist has been making physical relation with her minor daughter for the last six months. During investigation, at the time when the victim was medically examined, her statement was recorded in which, she has made allegation of rape on her against the revisionist. Thereafter, she in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has also stated inter-alia that the revisionist has forcefully raped her. 4-Learned counsel for the revisionist, assailing the impugned orders, submits that the revisionist was a juvenile and has been declared juvenile vide order dated 23.01.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 15 years, 06 months and 04 days, on the date of alleged incident. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 15.10.2023. 5-It is further being emphasized that the revisionist does not have any criminal antecedent to his credit. 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. 6-Learned Additional Government Advocate for 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. 7-Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, 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. 8-Having gone through the record, this Court finds that the victim is a minor child aged abut 15 years. The F.I.R. was lodged by the mother of the victim after giving vivid description of the incident by the victim. The victim, in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., has also supported the version of F.I.R. wherein charge of committing rape upon her has been levelled against the revisionist. 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. Considering the offence which is heinous in nature as well as the the age of the victim i.e. aged about 15 years, I do not find any good ground to release the revisionist on bail. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, in case revisionist is released on bail, then his release would defeat the ends of justice. 9-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. 10-As a fall out and consequence of the above, the present criminal revision lacks merit and is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Saurabh Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad