Hon’ble J.J. Munir, J.—Heard Sri Hari Bhawan, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Shyamdhar Yadav, learned AGA alongwith Sri Vivek Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. This revision is directed against an order of Sri Mohd. Aslam, learned Sessions Judge, Ballia dated 25.10.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal (Juvenile) No. 56 of 2017 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal affirming an order dated 6.10.2017 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ballia refusing bail to the revisionist in Case Crime No. 570 of 2017 under Sections 376, 506, IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Ubhaon, District Ballia.

3. The facts giving rise to the revision in brief are that a first information report was lodged on 9.5.2017 at about 17:45 hours by the informant Ramraj Rajbhar, a resident of village Sonadih, P.S. Ubhaon, District Ballia being a scribed information to the police carrying allegations that on 8.5.2017 at about 3:00 p.m. while his minor daughter (Muniya Kumari) aged about 10 years had gone to attend the call of nature, the accused Manglesh Rajbhar enticed her away, carried her off into a Gumati and ravished her. He gave her Rs. 5/- as an allurement to keep her mouth shut. On returning home, his daughter informed the parents about the incident. It is also mentioned in the FIR that the prosecutrix is a mentally retarded child. The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist was declared a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board on 15.9.2017, his age being found on the date of occurrence to be 15 years, 10 months and 23 days, a fact that is not in issue. The date of birth of the revisionist is 15.6.2001 as recorded in his school certificate which clearly places him below the age of 16 years. The submission is that the revisionist, looking to his age being below 16 the heinous nature or otherwise of the offence imputed to cannot be looked into for the purpose of judging his mental and physical capacity to commit such offences, and, it is not a case where considerations on the lines of those under Section 15 and 18 (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 can be invoked to deal with the revisionist as an adult judging the worth of all allegations/charges on merits.

4. The moot point involved in this appeal, a child below 16 years has to be dealt with for the consideration of his bail under Section 12 (1) of the Act without looking over the shoulder into those provisions of the law that now permit to find the mind of an adult in the body of a child.

5. Section 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 postulates bail to be the rule for every child in conflict with law whether the offence to be bailable or non bailable notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, and, carves out three distinct exceptions under which bail to a child may be refused, to wit:

1. Where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring the child into association with any known criminal

2. The release is likely to expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger

3. The release of the child would defeat the ends of justice.

6. This proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Act is attended by a further legislative mandate that in case the Board decides to deny bail to a child the Board shall record reasons for the said decision and the circumstances that led to such a decision.

7. A reading of the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board leaves much to be desired. There is reference to a report in the order of the Board about the social standing of his family being average but their economic condition poor. The said observation in the impugned order of the Board is a recitation of the District Probation Officer’s report with no finding on this issue.

8. Turning to the requirements of recording reasons and spelling out those circumstances where bail is denied to a