Hon’ble Kalimullah Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

This criminal revision has been preferred under Section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the impugned order dated 16.5.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Allahabad in criminal appeal No. 31 of 2011 ‘Kabutar alias Indrasen Singh v. State’ which has arisen out of order dated 31.1.2011 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Allahabad in crime No. 384 of 2010 under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Karchhana, District Allahabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that in a triple murder case, revisionist-applicant Kabutar alias Indrasen Singh was found involved during the course of investigation, F.I.R. of which was registered at crime No. 384 of 2010 under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Karchhana, District Allahabad. The revisionist-applicant claimed his juvenility in the Juvenile Justice Board. According to him, on the alleged date of incident of the aforesaid murder case, he was below 18 years of age and his date of birth in the High School certificate was shown as 21.5.1994. The Juvenile Justice Board held him juvenile but his bail prayer was rejected vide order dated 31.1.2011 on the ground that the mother, guardian of the revisionist-applicant had no supervisory control over him and his release on bail would not be in the interest of his moral, physical or psychological up-liftment.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist-applicant preferred criminal appeal No. 31 of 2011 ‘Kabutar alias Indrasen Singh v. State of U.P., challenging the order dated 31.1.2011 passed by concerned Juvenile Justice Board. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that it lacks merit, inasmuch as, the revisionist-applicant was involved in a heinous offence of triple murder case and it was not in the interest of justice to release him on bail.

4. Challenging the aforesaid two orders of subordinate Courts, this criminal revision has been preferred on the ground that the orders impugned are illegal, incorrect and improper.

Learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant has submitted that in case of juvenile, the gravity of offence is not the deciding factor; the revisionist-applicant has already served out his three years detention and it is the maximum period for which a juvenile can be detained in connection with some criminal case. He is in jail since 24.11.2010; the findings recorded by both the Courts below refusing bail to the revisionist-applicant are untenable under the law.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that it is not necessary that in all the criminal cases, accused should be enlarged on bail in the garb of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 but he has conceded that the revisionist-applicant has been declared juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board and he has served out more than three years in jail in connection with this case crime No. 384 of 2010 (supra).

Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 reads as under:

“Bail of juvenile.—(1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety (or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person) but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

(2) When such person