Point of law: Thus it is law that a bail application of a juvenile can be rejected only :-
(i) If there appears reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into association with any known criminal; or,
(ii) expose the juvenile to moral, physical or psychological danger; or,
(iii) release of the juvenile would defeat the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred by the juvenile Ram Kishan Yadav through his father Rajendra Prasad Yadav, under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short Act of 2015) against the order dated 18.12.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Sultanpur, in Criminal Appeal No.128 of 2019 Ram Kishan Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and also against order dated 21.11.2019 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board Sultanpur, in Case Crime No. 208 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) and Section 3(2)(V) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short SC/ST Act), Police Station Kudwar, District Sultanpur.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this Criminal Revision are as under:-

3. A First Information Report bearing Case Crime No. 208 of 2019 was presented by complainant Sher Bahadur alleging that his brother Sunny Gautam went out from the home on 05.05.2019 at about 11:00 am. When he did not come back the family members became worried. On 06.05.2019 in the evening at about 7:00 pm the brother-in-law of the complainant inquired on telephone about the whereabouts of Sunny Gautam. The complainant told him that he had gone out, on this point his brother-in-law informed him that some unknown persons have killed Sunny and threw the dead body in the forest of Purwa Majre Sohgauli, Sultanpur. On this information the complainant reached on the spot and recognized the dead body as of his brother Sunny Gautam. After cremation on 07.05.2019 he went to lodge the First Information Report.

4. Investigation was made. During the investigation the name of this revisionist came into light on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Anil Kumar Yadav whose name was disclosed by the witnesses with whom the deceased was last seen.

5. The revisionist claimed the juvenility and was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 22.10.2019. His age was found 15 years 7 months and 5 days on the date of incident. The revisionist/juvenile moved his bail application before Juvenile Justice Board, which was rejected by the Principal Magistrate of the Board on 21.11.2019. Against that order an appeal was preferred by the juvenile under Section 101 of the Act of 2015, that too was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO (The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences), Act Sultanpur per order dated 18.12.2019. Being aggrieved of the above order and judgment the juvenile preferred this revision.

6. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ashwani Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. None turned up on behalf of opposite party No.2, despite of sufficient service of notice.

7. Learned counsel for the juvenile/revisionist submitted that the impugned judgment of the appellate court and order of the Juvenile Board have been passed in transgression of the settled law relating to Juveniles. The bail for juvenile can be denied only in three conditions mentioned in the provisio to Section 12(1) of the Act, of 2015, not otherwise. Juvenile was not named in the F.I.R., his name came into light on the basis of confessional statement made by co-accused who was named by the witnesses in their statements. Another co-accused Rahul Yadav, who was an adult whose name also came into light on the basis of the confessional statement made by the same co-accused Anil Kumar Yadav was granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1692 of 2019.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no material on record to bring the case of the juvenile/revisionist under the exceptions given in Section 12 of the Act of 2015, hence the judgment and order passed by both the courts below deserve to be set-aside, as they are against the law.

9. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand opposed the cont