Point of law: The rule in Section 12(1) of the Act is in favour of bail always to a juvenile/ child in conflict with law except when the case falls into one or the other categories denial contemplated by the proviso. It is not the rule about bail in Section 12 of the Act that in case a child in conflict with law is brought before the Board or Court, his case is not to be seen on merits prima facie about his complicity at all for the purpose granting him bail; and all that has been done is to see if his case falls is one or the other exceptions, where he can be denied bail. The rule in Section 12 sanctioning bail universally to every child in conflict with law presupposes that there is a prima facie case against him in the assessment of the Board or the Court based on the evidence placed at that stage.

JUDGMENT :

1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.10.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Kaushambi dismissing Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2019 (versus State of UP) filed under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ‘the Act’) and affirming the order dated 30.7.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Kaushambi refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Bail Application No.22 of 2019 under Section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Puramufti District Kaushambi.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

3. The prosecution case, as per the version of the FIR, is that the daughter of the informant namely Ranjana was married to Santosh son of Bachcha and on 1.9.2018 she was set on fire by tying her with the cot on account of non-fulfilment of rupees one lac as dowry and thereafter during treatment she died on 7.9.2018.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that general role has been assigned to the revisionist and his family members. No specific role has been assigned to the revisionist.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is juvenile and there is no apprehension of reasoned ground for believing that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring him in association with any known criminals or expose him to mental, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. He further submits that except this the revisionist has no previous criminal history. The cousin brother of the revisionist is giving his undertaking that after release of the revisionist on bail, he will keep him under his custody and look after him properly. Further, the revisionist undertakes that he will not tamper the evidence and he will always cooperate the trial proceedings. There was no report regarding any previous antecedents of family or background of the revisionist. There is no chance of revisionist’s re-indulgence to bring him into association with known criminals.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that it is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile as he has already been declared juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board, Kaushambi vide order dated 2.7.2019. The revisionist was a juvenile aged about 17 years on the date of occurrence. He is in jail since 14.11.2018 in connection with the present crime and has completed more than half of the sentence out of the maximum three years institutional incarceration permissible for a juvenile, under Section 18(1)(g) of the Act. It is submitted with much emphasis that co-accused Bachcha @ Bacha Nishad, who is adult and similarly circumstanced as the revisionist, has been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 17.4.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15869 of 2019. It is argued that the revisionist being a minor, cannot be held in institutional incarceration any further once co-accused, similarly circumstanced, has been admitted to bail. Further submission is that the case of the revisionist is not on worse footing than that of the co-accused, therefore on principles of parity also the revisionist be released on bail.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that thereafter the revisionist applied for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Kaushambi upon which a report from the District Probation Officer was called for. The bail application was rejected vide order dated 30.7.2019, being aggrieved, the revisionist preferred an appeal under Section 101 of the Act, which was also dismissed vide order dated 26.10.2019. Hence the present criminal revision has been filed before this Hon’ble Court mainly on the following amongst other grounds :

(i) That the bai