Hon’ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.—This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.3.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Mau in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2015 (Ranjeet Yadav v. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 485 of 2014, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 and 5/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Haldharpur, District Mau, whereby the order dated 9.1.2015 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, rejecting the bail application of revisionist / juvenile has been affirmed and the appeal filed by juvenile has been dismissed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.

3. According to the F.I.R. (Annexure-1) lodged by the father of the prosecutrix, on 3.6.2014 at about 8.00 p.m. when his daughter had gone to the fields to attend the natural call, the revisionist enticed her away with the help of co accused Kamlesh. The father of revisionist, co accused Bahadur, despite having knowledge about the occurrence, did not tell anything, to the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist, his driver and his father all are falsely implicated in this case. He is a student, who intends to further pursue his studies, but due to detention in juvenile home he is unable to do so. The prosecutrix is major and according to her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she had left her home in the company of the revisionist on her own free will. Learned counsel has further submitted that the medical report and the statement of prosecutrix does not support the prosecution story. There is material contradiction between the two statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.. The learned counsel has submitted that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been given by the prosecutrix under pressure, whereas her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., recorded during video recording (which fact is evident from the statement of the I.O. (Annexure-5)) appears to be more reliable. It has further been submitted that it is hard to digest that the old father and son would commit rape with the same girl at the same place and time. It is next contended that the two co-accused who are major have already been released on bail whereas the revisionist is still languishing in juvenile home since 31.7.2014 and his bail application has been rejected by both the Courts below without keeping in view the clear mandate of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the report of District Probation Officer, annexed as Annexure-9 to the affidavit which indicates that the revisionist and the prosecutrix had love affair and both of them had run away from their homes on 31st May, 2014.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed this revision by contending that there is allegation of gang rape against the revisionist, which is a heinous offence. His parents have got no control over him and, therefore, for the betterment of his psychological and physical trails, his retention in Juvenile Home has rightly been ordered by both the Courts below and consequently instant revision being merit less be dismissed.

6. I have given a thought over the entire facts and circumstances of the case and have gone through the two impugned orders.

7. The radiological age of the girl has been found to be about 18 years. She has travelled to Varanasi and from Varanasi to Delhi and has lived at Delhi for about a month, but she has not tried to raise any alarm. Her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which has been recorded under video recording reveals that she had clearly stated to have left her parental home out of her own sweet will. It is also evident from the police report (Annexure-7) that seeing the police, the revisionist and the prosecutrix, both tried to run away. However, when the police arrested them, she changed her statement alleging that she was enticed away and raped not only by the