Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77226 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4424 of 2024 Revisionist :- Mr. X - Juvenile Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Abhishek Kumar Shahi,Rajeev Kumar Singh 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 06.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 1, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2024 and against order dated 09.07.2024 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur in Case Crime No. 212 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 452, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur 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. and perused the record. 4-As per the prosecution case in brief, complainant got a first information report lodged on 22.04.2024 for the offence under Sections 147, 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C. against eight accused persons, namely, Pappu Mishra, Chandan, Golu, revisionist, Aryan Mishra, Ranjeet, Ajit and Ram Niranjan Mishra making general allegation of assaulting his mother by sticks. F.I.R. also alleges that on the next day, the complainant's mother, during her treatment, has succumbed to her injuries. 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 21.04.2024 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 24.06.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 15 years 11 months and 20 days on the date of alleged incident. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 25.04.2024. 6-It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in this case. General role of assault has been assigned to all the co-accused persons. There is no recovery of any incriminating article from the possession of the revisionist and he has no criminal history to his credit. Other co-accused persons namely, Aryan Mishra, Dhruv Narayan Mishra @ Pappu and Chandan Mishra have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 01.08.2024, 27.08.2024 and 13.09.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 23938 of 2024, 29281 of 2024 and 29948 of 2024 respectively. The case of the revisionist stands on similar footing to that of aforesaid co-accused persons, therefore, the revisionist 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 25.04.2024 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. 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 06.08.2024 and 09.07.2024 are hereby set aside. 11-Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed. 12-Let the revisionist Mr. X - Juvenile involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his mother namely Smt. Sanju Devi 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