The decision emphasized the need to balance the rights of juvenile offenders with the interests of the public, considering the severity of the offense and the potential danger to the victim and society.

RANG NATH PANDEY, J.

1. This criminal revision has been filed against Judgment and Order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Balrampur in Criminal Appeal No.04 of 2017 confirming the order dated 02.05.2017 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Balrampur in case crime No.563 of 2017 under Section 376 IPC and Section 5M/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Maharajganj Tarai, District Balrampur.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged at Police Station Maharajganj Tarai, District Balrampur by the uncle of the victim stating that on 26.2.2017 at about 4.00 P.M., while his nice namely Km. Shayda was going to attend the call of nature, she was dragged by the juvenile accused into the field of sugarcane and thereafter rape was committed by him. As per the prosecution, medical examination of the victim was conducted and her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded and on the basis of the medical report the rape with the victim was confirmed.

3. The Juvenile Justice Board declared the accused Kapil Verma as juvenile. An application for bail was moved on behalf of the accused which was rejected by the Board vide order dated 02.05.2017. Being aggrieved by the order of the Board, Criminal Appeal No.04 of 2017 was filed before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Balrampur and by order dated 17.07.2017, the appeal was dismissed by the learned lower appellate Court. The judgment and order of the appellate court has now been challenged in this revision.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

5. The revisionist has assailed the order of the appellate court mainly on the ground that the appellate court has dismissed the appeal without considering the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 relying upon the report submitted by the District Probotion Officer, Balrampur on the basis of which the Board had rejected the bail of the juvenile, as such the orders of the courts below are wholly illegal and unjustified; the juvenile has no other previous criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of the revisionist to come in association with criminals or would be exposed to criminality and therefore, in the interest of justice, he be released on bail. The contrary findings of the courts below are based on no evidence and perverse as the order has been passed on surmises and conjectures. It has been lastly contended that the appellate Court passed the impugned order considering the gravity of the offence in utter disregard to the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act and the orders of the courts below are wholly illegal, unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

6. In support of his case, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on Judgment rendered in the case of Ravi Vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in 2015 (2) JIC 509 (ALL) as well as Judgment rendered in the case of Ranjeet Yadav (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in 2015 (2) JIC 738 (All).

7. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate rebutting the above contentions submitted that rejection order dated 2.5.2017 of the Board and the appellate order dated 17.07.2017 in the facts and circumstances of the case are well reasoned, legal and proper and there is nothing wrong in rejecting the bail of the juvenile and both the courts below have taken into account the provisions of Section 12 of the Act as well as the report of the District Probation Officer and have rightly passed the orders rejecting the bail of the juvenile which do not require any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

8. It is an admitted fact that the victim was aged about 6 years and in order of dispense justice the bail of juvenile has rightly been refused. Section 12 of the Act reads as under:

"12. Bail of Juveni