Hon’ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.—Heard Sri Vishnu Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned learned AGA for the State. Perused the record.

2. An application was moved before the Juvenile Justice Board, Moradabad, by the mother of the revisionist Amit Yadav alias Monu alias Bebo, who is a juvenile offender, seeking his custody, in Case Crime No. 70 of 2013, under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities(Prevention) Act, 1986, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 12.8.2014 on the ground that if the juvenile is given in the custody of his mother, it would bring him into the association of known criminals and would expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 12.8.2014 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, the revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2014, Amit Yadav @ Monu @ Bebo v. State of U.P., before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Moradabad, which was also dismissed vide order dated 12.3.2015.

4. The revisionist, by means of the instant revision has challenged the legality and correctness of both these orders dated 12.3.2015 and 12.8.2014, mainly on the ground that even though the revisionist is undisputedly a juvenile but both the Courts below, without keeping in view the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, have passed the impugned orders.

5. While drawing the attention of this Court to the gang chart appended to the revision as Annexure No. 2, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that only two cases against the revisionist are shown in the gang chart, which are as under:

1. Case Crime No. 367 of 2012, under Sections 395, 997, 412 I.P.C., P.S. Baniyather, District Sambhal.

2. Case crime No. 25 of 2013 under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Baniyather, District Sambhal.

6. The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that in both these cases the revisionist has been granted bail. However, as he was implicated under the Gangster Act, on the basis of aforesaid two cases he could not be released from the Juvenile home. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the prayer of mother of the revisionist for his custody was refused by the Juvenile Justice Board only on the ground that his release is likely to bring him into the association with known criminals or to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, without any evidence for the same. There was no evidence on record to substantiate the above fact that there is possibility of revisionist coming in association with any known criminal. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the co-accused persons, who are major, have already been released on bail, whereas the applicant is still languishing in juvenile home due to his implication under Gangsters Act. He has further submitted that in the first case shown in the gang chart as Crime No. 367/2013 (wrongly typed as 367/2012) he has been released on bail by the Juvenile Justice Board. The second case crime No. 25 of 2013 under Section 307 I.P.C. is related to an alleged incidence of firing on police party where no one has received injury. On the aforesaid grounds it has been prayed by the learned counsel for the revisionist that both the orders being illegal and arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law, be set aside and the juvenile/revisionist be released on bail.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A has supported both the impugned orders and has submitted that the parents have got no control over the revisionist offender therefore for the betterment of his future life, his retention in Juvenile Home has been rightly ordered by both the Courts below. Consequently instant revision being merit less be dismissed. However, learned AGA has fairly conceded that all the remaining accused have already been bailed out by the competent Court.

8. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both sides