Point of Law: Identity of the juvenile shall not be disclosed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Madan Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A for the State. Despite of service of notice upon opposite party no. 2, no one has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

2. The Present Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 102 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "JJ Act, 2015") against the judgment dated 9.3.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Moradabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2021 (arising out of Case No. 21 of 2020), whereby the learned appellate court has rejected the appeal and affirmed the order dated 22.1.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Moradabad. The Juvenile Justice Board has also rejected the bail application of juvenile 'X' which has been filed by his natural guardian/father, under Section 12 of "JJ Act, 2015", in case Crime No. 162 of 2020 under Sections 302, 34 of The Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") Police Station Bhojpur, District Moradabad by the order dated 22.1.2021.

3. Being aggrieved of the judgment and order dated 9.3.2021 and 22.1.2021 passed by the Appellate Court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board, the juvenile 'X' through his father has preferred the instant revision before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist vehemently submitted that the juvenile was below 18 years of age at the time of the incident. The Juvenile Justice Board has declared the juvenile 'X' was 9 years 6 months and 10 days old at the time of incident vide order dated 14.12.2020 and no proceeding is pending against the order dated 14.12.2020. It has been further submitted that juvenile 'X' is not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated during the investigation without any material evidence. After four days of the incident, the juvenile has been implicated and apprehended by the police on 24.5.2020 on the basis of suspicion. It has been further submitted that there is no evidence to show that if in case the juvenile is released on bail, then his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the ends of justice, no such finding was recorded as to how he will come in contact with known criminals and how he will be exposed to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The juvenile is in protective custody in an observation home since 24.5.2020.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that juvenile 'X' has not committed any offence and has no criminal antecedent to his credit except the present case and is not a previous convict nor is associated in any kind of unsocial or criminal activities. There is no report regarding any previous criminal antecedents of the family of the revisionist and also there is no chance of the juvenile re-indulgence to bring him into association with known criminals. The natural guardian/father of the revisionist giving an undertaking that if juvenile is released on bail, he will keep him in his custody and look after him properly and assure on behalf of the juvenile that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make the juvenile available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him.

6. It has been further submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the Appellate Court have not appreciated the Social Information Report of the Probation Officer in its right perspective and passed the impugned judgment and order in a cursory manner without considering the position of law and have declined bail to the revisionist. The bare perusal of the impugned orders demonstrates that the same has been passed on flimsy grounds, which have occasioned a gross miscarriage of justice. The judgment an