Hon’ble J.J. Munir, J.—Heard Sri G.S. Basaria, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Indrajeet Singh, learned A.G.A. alongwith Sri Vivek Dubey appearing on behalf of the State.

2. This revision is directed against an order of Sri Arun Kumar Pathak, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Bareilly, dated 29.4.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2017 dismissing the said appeal and affirming an order dated 10.3.2017 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly refusing bail to the revisionist in Case Crime No. 458 of 2016, under Section 377 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Bahedi, District Bareilly.

3. A perusal of the office report dated 7.4.2018 shows that notice upon opposite party No. 2 has been served personally. Service is held to be sufficient. No one has put in appearance on behalf opposite party No. 2.

4. Brief facts giving rise to this revision are that a First Information Report was lodged on 12.9.2016 at 3.00 p.m. by one Mohd. Sajid with the allegations that the daughter of his uncle Salim Ahmad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘’prosecutrix’), a child aged about 5 years was playing by the doorsteps of her house when at about 3.00 p.m. his servant working at the adjoining shop, that is to say, the revisionist talked her away into the lavatory, where he sodomized her, on account of which the prosecutrix bled profusely; she cried out in pain. Hearing that he and his father Jameel and his aunt Shabana went into the lavatory, beat up the revisionist catching him red handed on the spot, and, had brought him to the Police Station. The prosecutrix was sent for medico-legal examination to the District Women Hospital, Bareilly. The First Information Report aforesaid was registered at the Police Station as Case Crime No. 458 of 2017, under Sections 377 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Bahedi, District Bareill.

5. A perusal of the record shows that the victim was sent for medical examination to the District Women Hospital, Bareilly, where in column 15-F it is recorded “no pain in defecation or abdominal pain in genitalia”. It is recorded in column 17 “no mark of injury seen”. In the “Local examination of genital parts/other orifices” that includes various sites, under column 18-C that relates to “Anus and Rectum”, it is mentioned “no bleeding, no redness, no discharge, no tenderness”.

6. The statement of the victim that is on record as Annexure 3, which to all appearances is a statement recorded before the police, reads as follows:

^^c;ku ihfM+rk%& eq0v0la0 458@16 /kkjk 377 vkbZihlh ,oa 6 iksDlks ,DV Fkkuk cgsM+h cjsyh C;ku ihfM+rk& dq0 ------ mez djhc 5 o"kZ iq=h lyhe vgen fuoklh ekS0 bLykeuxj Fkkuk cgsM+h ftyk cjsyh ls I;kj ls iz'uksRrj fd;s tkrs gSA iz'u% csVh rqEgkjk D;k uke gS\ mRrj%& ----- (not being reproduced in view of Section 228 IPC) iz'u%& csVh vkids lkFk D;k ?kVuk gqbZ gS\ mRrj%& esjs lkFk bnjh'k us xyr dke fd;k gSA eq>s nnZ gks jgk gSA ,lMh0 ,e lh 645 phuw pkS/kjh Fkkuk cgsM+hA cjsyh fnukad 12&09&2016A c;ku dh izfrfyfi layXu lhMh dh tkrh gSA**

7. It may be borne in mind that the bail application of a juvenile is to be determined on the parameters postulated by Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 2015’), that requires for a rule that every child in conflict with law whether the offence be bailable or non-bailable notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be granted bail except where the three parameters envisaged under the proviso to the aforesaid Section exist. If those exist, bail may be denied on any one or more of them. The said three grounds to deny bail, are :

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 e