Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89278 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3129 of 2024 Revisionist :- Delinquent Juvenile - (X) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pankaj Sharma,Shekhar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.K. Mishra,G.A.,Sati Shanker Tripathi 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 preferred against the judgment and order dated 14.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mathura in Criminal Appeal No. 1854 of 2024 (Delinquent Juvenile Ajay vs. State of U.P. and Another) and against order dated 07.05.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Mathura in Case Crime No. 50 of 2024, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Chhata, District Mathura, 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 and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P., counsel for the informant and perused the record. 3-As per the prosecution case, informant- Rameshwar who is father of the deceased- Trilokchand got a first information report lodged on 11.02.2024 for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. against unknown person alleging inter-alia that on 11.02.2024 his son Trilokchand, aged about 07 years had gone to play but did not return. F.I.R. also alleges that on a hectic search, at about 05:00 pm, his dead body was found lying in the forest of his village. 4-Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 11.02.2024 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 22.03.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 16 years 01 month and 27 days on the date of alleged incident. It is next submitted that aforesaid order declaring the revisionist as juvenile has attained finality because the same has not been challenged by the opposite party No.2, the averment in this regard has been made in para no. 17 of the affidavit. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 14.02.2024. 5-It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is not named in the F.I.R. and has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no eye witness of the incident and there is no direct evidence against the revisionist except the extra judicial confession of the revisionist before one Srikant, which is not admissible in evidence. It is further submitted that even it is not a case of last seen evidence. 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 and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the present revision. It has thus been submitted, merely because the revisionist is a juvenile it would not entitle him to bail without going into the gravity of the offence, the nature of the crime. 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, I find that there is no adverse report of District Probation Officer, Mathura against the revisionist. 8-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. 9-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 14.05.2024 and 07.05.2024 are hereby set aside. 10-Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed. 11-Let the revisionist Delinquent Juvenile - (X), involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his father namely Mr. Pavan Kumar 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. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Saurabh Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad