Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77207 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4288 of 2024 Revisionist :- X Juvenile Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ganesh Mani,Vijai Kumar Tripathi,Vinod Kumar Yadav 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 preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.08.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kushinagar at Padrauna in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2024 (X Juvenile vs. State of U.P. and Another) and against order dated 18.06.2024 passed by learned Chief Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Bail Application No. 59 of 2024 (State of U.P. vs. X-Juvenile) in Case Crime No. 1010 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Kasya, District Kushinagar whereby the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned appellate court refused the prayer of bail of accused-revisionist. 2-Despite service of notice upon the complainant/informant, no one has put in appearance on his behalf, hence, this Court proceeds to hear this matter on merit. 3-Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. 4-Succinctly, the prosecution case is that the informant-Shamsad Ahmad has lodged an F.I.R. on 17.12.2023 against unknown person for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. alleging inter-alia that he, his wife and children were sleeping in the house. In the night of 16.12.2023, his son, namely, Mumtaj was sleeping in the adjacent room. F.I.R. further alleges that on 17.12.2023 at about 09:00 in the morning, he received an information that the beheaded dead body of his son Mumtaj was lying in the river. 5-Learned counsel for the revisionist assailing the impugned orders submits that the revisionist was a juvenile on the date of the alleged incident dated 16.12.2023 and he has been declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 15 years 03 months and 12 days on the date of alleged incident. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 20.12.2023. 6-It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is not named in the F.I.R. It is next submitted that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in this case on the confessional statement of co-accused Ishaq Ali and Irfan, which is not admissible in evidence. There is no eye witness of the incident and there is no recovery of any incriminating material from the possession of the revisionist. The revisionist has no criminal history to his credit. Co-accused Ishtiyaq who is also juvenile has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.01.2025 in Criminal Revision No. 4627 of 2024. The case of present revisionist stands on similar footing to that of co- accused Ishtiyaq, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 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. 7-Learned Additional Government Advocate 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. 8-Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is true that a juvenile offender is not entitled as of right to be enlarged on bail, irrespective of any other fact or circumstance, however, it also cannot be denied that in view of specific and special legislative intent and intervention, refusal of bail in the case of a juvenile may be made only for specific reasons and circumstance. Otherwise, a general legislative presumption does appear to exist under the scheme of the Act that the welfare of alleged juvenile offender would be better served without he being confined for long duration. Here, the revisionist has remained in juvenile home since 20.12.2023 against the maximum sentence of three years in case of conviction. 9-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. 10-Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail in Section 12 of the aforesaid Act. Though the prayer for bail of the revisionist has been opposed by learned counsel for the opposite State, but could not demonstrate from the record that there existed any of the grounds on which bail application of a juvenile could be rejected keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. 11-Considering the above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are erroneous and cannot be sustained. The aforesaid impugned orders dated 07.08.2024 and 18.06.2024 are hereby set aside. 12-Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed. 13-Let the revisionist X Juvenile, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his mother, namely, Shyara Khatoon 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 :- 12.5.2025 Saurabh Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad