Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40912 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3824 of 2024 Revisionist :- X (Juvenile) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Kuldeep Tripathi,Shiv Shanker Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Charan Lal 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 10.07.2024 passed by Juvenile Court/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.1, Moradabad in Criminal Appeal No.38 of 2024 and against order dated 07.06.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Moradabad in Case Crime No.98 of 2024, under Sections 376, 384, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 67-a of Information Technology Act, Police Station Bilari, District Moradabad, 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 counsel for the informant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the record. As per prosecution case, in brief, the complainant, who is brother of the victim lodged F.I.R. on 27.02.2024 against the revisionist (juvenile) for the alleged offence under Sections 376, 384, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and Section 67-a of Information Technology Act making allegation inter-alia that at the time of washing cloths by his sister, the revisionist had taken her photographs and thereafter he also made her video through whats-app call and on 26.02.2024, the revisionist made her sister's obscene video viral on Instagram. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in this case. No such obscene video has been collected by the Investigating Officer except a audio of conversation of the revisionist with the victim. He further submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged on the information of the victim but no allegation of rape has been levelled in the F.I.R. whereas when statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim was recorded, in which, she under the pressure of her family members made improvement in the prosecution case making exaggerated allegation of rape also against the revisionist, whereas the said allegation of victim is not corroborated from the medical examination report of the victim. Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 26.02.2024 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 24.05.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 17 years, 1 month and 25 days on the date of alleged incident. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 09.03.2024. 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 first time the allegation of rape has been levelled by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., therefore, possibility of giving such statement by the victim under pressure of her family members cannot be ruled out. 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 10.07.2024 and 07.06.2024 are hereby set aside. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed. Let the revisionist- Arman Ansari (Minor), involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his father, namely, Modh. Usman, 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