Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63198 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4900 of 2024 Revisionist :- X Juvenile Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pawan Kumar 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 03.09.2024 passed by learned Juvenile Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Maharajganj in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2024 (Shubham Yadav vs. State of U.P.) and against order dated 02.08.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Maharajganj arising out of Case Crime No. 216 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Ghughuli, District Maharajganj 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, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P. and perused the record. 4-As per the prosecution case in brief, a first information report was lodged by the informant against unknown persons regarding the murder of his son. The dead body of his son was found on the railway track. 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 17- 18.05.2024 and he has been declared juvenile vide order dated 22.07.2024 of Juvenile Justice Board treating the age of revisionist as 17 years 01 month and 27 days on the date of alleged incident. The revisionist has remained confined in juvenile home since 19.05.2024. 6-As to the offence alleged, it is submitted that the revisionist has falsely been implicated in the case with ulterior motive. The F.I.R. is delayed by more than one day and there is no plausible explanation of delay. The applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The name of the applicant, for the first time, surfaced in the statement of the informant, wherein he has stated that the revisionist had an altercation with the deceased some day prior to the incident. Later on, complicity of the revisionist and co-accused Ashok Yadav came in light in the statement of one Mahendra, who has stated inter-alia that he had seen the revisionist and co-accused Ashok Yadav going towards the railway line. Co-accused Ashok Yadav has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.11.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33430 of 2024 and the case of the revisionist stands on similar footing to that of co-accused Ashok Yadav, as such, prayer for bail of the revisionist is liable to be considered. 7-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. 8-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. 9-Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is no adverse report of District Probation Officer, Maharajganj against the revisionist and co-accused Ashok Yadav, under similar accusation, has been granted bail, as noted above. 10-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. 11-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 03.09.2024 and 02.08.2024 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, Sona 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 :- 24.4.2025 Saurabh Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad