The gravity of the offense should be considered when judging the entitlement of a juvenile to bail, and the court should balance the interests of the child and the society. The principle of best interest as described in the Juvenile Justice Act should also be taken into account.

JUDGMENT :

JYOTSNA SHARMA,J.

1. Heard Sri Adesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Vivek Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 has been filed on behalf of the minor 'X' S/o Moolchand through his natural guardian/grandfather Sri Ved Prakash S/o Late Desh Raz R/o Village-Akbarpur Shadat, Police Station Bahsuma, District-Meerut with the prayer to admit the minor to bail alongwith the prayer to set aside the order dated 07.07.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut and order dated 26.08.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 52/2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 34 of 2021 under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Bahsuma, District-Meerut by which the bail to the juvenile was declined.

3. As per the version of the FIR, the informant's son-Nitin had gone to his college on his bullet motorcycle to receive his report card. When he approached the gate of his college, he found the revisionist (minor) and his brother-Arjun standing there. He got engaged in some kind of conversation with them. Suddenly, the minor whipped out a country-made firearm and shot at Nitin. He was referred to Meerut Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries and died. On the basis of the FIR lodged by deceased's father within less than 5 hours of the incident on the same day, Case Crime No. 0034 of 2021 under Section 302 IPC, was registered and investigated upon. On finding one of the accused person, who is the present revisionist, a minor, the matter was placed before the Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut where an order for determination of age was passed on 23.06.2021 and he was found of the age of little over 13 years and 6 months. The minor applied for bail through his guardian/father namely, Mool Chand but the same was rejected by the Board. The Appeal No. 52 of 2021 filed against the above noted order dated 07.07.2021, was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below.

4. Aggrieved by the above two orders, the minor through his guardian/grandfather has come in criminal revision.

5. It is submitted by the revisionist that the courts below have not proceeded in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 which are mandatory in nature and have dis-entitled the minor from bail without any good reason. The courts below failed to consider that no material has been collected to demonstrate that there was any likelihood of juvenile being brought in association with any known criminals or to expose him to any moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release is likely to defeat the ends of justice. It is next submitted that the juvenile has had no criminal history and that the learned courts below have only considered the gravity of crime and dismissed his application on merits of the matter which clearly goes against the statutory provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

6. It has been submitted that gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration for refusing bail to the juvenile as has been held by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 2732 of 2010 (Amit Kumar vs. State of U.P.) decided on 14.09.2010, Criminal Revision No. 1266 of 2020 (Kanchan Sonkar vs. State of U.P.) decided on 01.12.2020, Criminal Revision No. 1852 of 2015 (Amit vs. State of U.P.) decided on 16.03.2016 and held by the Apex Court in Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006 Cri.L.J. 1373.

7. In Criminal Revision No. 1852 of 2015 (Amit vs. State of U.P.) decided on 16.03.2016, this Court referred to the earlier judgement in Vijendra Kumar Mali vs. State of U.P., 2003 (1) J.I.C. 103, wherein this Court reiterated that in a number of judgements, it has been categorically held that bail to the juvenile can only be refused if one of the grounds as provided in proviso to Section 12(1) of t