Point of law: A perusal of the said provision show that bail for a juvenile, particularly, one who is under the age of 18 years, is a matter of course and it is only in the event that his case falls under one or the other disentitling categories mentioned in the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act that bail may be refused. The merits of the case against a juvenile acquire some relevance under the last clause of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 12 that speaks about the ends of justice being defeated. The other two disentitling categories are quite independent and have to be evaluated with reference to the circumstances of the juvenile. Those circumstances are to be gathered from the Social Investigation Report, the police report and in whatever other manner relevant facts enter the record.

JUDGMENT :

1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.06.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Agra dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2019 (Ranjeet Vs. 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 21.02.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Agra refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Case Crime No.85 of 2017, under Sections 302, 394 & 411 I.P.C., Police Station-Shamsabad, District Agra.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The prosecution case, as per the version of the FIR, is that on 5.4.2017, when informant, Seemendra Singh Solanki who is a Sub-Inspector along with his team members namely Constable Gurmeet Singh, Constable Naresh Chand and Constable Vipin Kumar were patrolling, an information was received at about 7:25 on RT Set that firing was being done near Raja Kheda Road Bypass Tiraha and one person had got injured. Upon receiving the aforesaid information, the informant along with his team members reached the place of occurrence and found Constable Ajay Kumar of Police Station Shamsabad in a grievous injured condition lying aside road. The informant got knowledge from the people surrounded there that when the said Constable Ajay Kumar was trying to stop the three rogues who were coming from Rajkheda, they pumped many bullets to Constable Ajay Kumar by hurling abuses from their country made pistols. In reply, Constable Ajay Kumar has also open fired to them but they snatched his service pistol and flew away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, the informant informed the higher officers about the said incident and bring Constable Ajay Kumar from the official jeep of police station to the G.G. Nursing Home where the doctors declared Constable Ajay Kumar as dead. Thereafter, the dead body of Constable Ajay Kumar was sent to mortury at S.N. Medical College for post mortem examination.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the revisionist is in jail since 17.4.2017 and has completed more than four years of his incarceration.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that co-accused Yogesh @ Khanna who is also a juvenile and having similar role already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 30.9.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No. 3112 of 2019. It is argued that the revisionist being a minor, cannot be held in institutional incarceration any further once co-accused, who is also a juvenile and 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.

6. 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 mother of the revisionist is giving her undertaking that after release of the revisionist on bail, she 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.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that it is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenil