Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40793 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2889 of 2024 Revisionist :- X Juvenile Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashutosh Kumar Singh,Pavan Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. The present criminal revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.05.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Chandauli in Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2024 and against order dated 22.04.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Chandauli in Case No.95 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.7 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, police station Dhanapur, district Chandauli, whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer of bail of accused- revisionist. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the record. As per prosecution case, in brief, the informant, who is brother of deceased- Phool Mati Devi lodged F.I.R. on 17.01.2023 against the revisionist- Satish Kumar Bind and his father and mother, namely, Jodhan Bind and Yashwanta Devi making allegation inter-alia that the marriage of his sister was solemnized about one and half years ago with the revisionist but on account of demand dowry, his sister was being harassed and tortured in her matrimonial home. The revisionist used to demand money for business. On 16.01.2023 at about 08:00 PM, the revisionist told over the phone that his sister Phool Mati Devi drank pesticide and she died. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is the husband of the deceased. Since his child was crying, therefore, some altercation took place between the revisionist and his wife regarding feeding milk to his son, due to which, the deceased became furious and had drank pesticide. She was taken to the hospital but she died on the way. Much emphasis has been given by contending that in the post-mortem report, no injury has been found on the body of the deceased. It is further submitted that after the incident, the applicant has immediately given information to the brother of the deceased and on receiving the said information, he came at his house and participated in the legal proceedings (Inquest, etc.). It is also pointed out that though at the time of incident, the father of the revisionist was in Gujarat and mother of the revisionist was living separately but they have also been falsely implicated in this case by the informant, hence after culmination of investigation, no charge sheet has been submitted against them. Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 02.04.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 17 years, 7 months and 24 days on the date of alleged incident. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 23.01.2023. 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. Learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the present revision but could not dispute the factum of the case as argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist. Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I find that it is not in dispute that deceased died due to drinking pesticide and after the incident the revisionist had given information to the brother of the deceased, on which he gave an information to police wherein he has also stated inter-alia that has sister has died on account of drinking pesticide. 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:- (1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or (2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or (3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Considering the facts of the case as noted above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are erroneous and cannot be sustained. The aforesaid impugned orders dated 13.05.2024 and 22.04.2024 are hereby set aside. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed. Let the revisionist- Satish Kumar Bind (Minor), involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his father, namely, Jodhan Bind, who is his natural guardian with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses; (ii) The revisionist 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 revisionist 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. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Sanjeet Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad