Point of Law: If the juvenile is released on bail, he will be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger and confirmed the order of the Juvenile Justice Board and rejected the appeal of the juvenile.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the juvenile Aman Kashyap through his mother, under Section 102 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short 'Act of 2015') against order dated 28.8.2020 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge(POCSO Act), Gonda in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2021 (Aman Kashyap Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 2.7.2020 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gonda in Case No.18/2020 (State of U.P. Vs. Aman Kashyap in Case Crime No.10/2020, under Sections 363, 366, 506, 376 (3) Indian Penal Code ( in short 'I.P.C.') and Section 3/4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ( in short 'POCSO Act'), Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this criminal revision are as under :

3. An F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.10/2020 was registered against the revisionist at police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda under Sections 363, 366, 506, 376 (3) I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act.

In the F.I.R., allegations against the revisionist are that he enticed away the daughter of the complainant on 8.12.2019 at about 9.00 p.m. in the night. He left the victim back on 29.12.2019 and threatened to kill her if she tells anybody about the incident. In her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that Aman (revisionist) took her away forcibly and committed rape upon her.

The revisionist was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board per order dated 8.6.2020. He moved application to release him on bail which was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board per order dated 2.7.2020.

4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, the applicant preferred appeal under Section 101 of the Act of 2015 which was decided by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Gonda per order dated 28.8.2020 wherein appeal of the applicant juvenile was dismissed.

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed in appeal, this revision has been preferred.

6. The revisionist juvenile has assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the court below has overlooked the report of the District Probation Officer wherein nothing adverse has been noted against the revisionist. No reason has been assigned by the appellate court to arrive at the conclusion that if the applicant will be released on bail, he would associate with criminals and that will cause moral, physical or psychological danger to the applicant/revisionist. There is also no reason to conclude that if the revisionist is released on bail, that will defeat the ends of justice.

7. It has also been stated that the bail application of the juvenile can be rejected only if there exists either of the conditions provided in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015. It has further been stated that the impugned orders passed by the appellate court as well as Juvenile Justice Board are without application of mind and illegal.

8. Notice was served upon respondent no.2 the informant but none turned up.

9. Counter affidavit was filed by respondent no.1 State of U.P. wherein it has been stated that if the applicant is released on bail, then there is possibility that law and order situation may worsen and the applicant may abscond.

10. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.

11. Learned counsel for the revisionist/juvenile submitted that the revisionist is a minor. The victim and the applicant are students in the same school. Both are minor. The victim herself accompanied the applicant juvenile. Furthermore, the settled legal position is that the bail application of the juvenile in conflict with law can be rejected only on the ground mentioned in the proviso of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 and not otherwise.

He further submitted that there is no material on record to infer that the applicant juvenile if released on bail, shall come in association of known cr