The gravity of the offence should not be a hindrance to refuse bail to a delinquent juvenile, but the nature of the crime, conduct of the accused, and the ends of justice should be considered while evaluating the bail plea of the juvenile.

JUDGMENT :

Gajendra Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri N.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri M.P.S. Gaur, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and perused the record.

2. This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, has been filed on behalf of the minor 'X' through his natural guardian/mother Anita w/o Shri Prakash, R/o Village-Merdha, Police Station Khutahan, District Jaunpur with the prayer to admit the minor on bail alongwith the prayer to set aside the order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Jaunpur and order dated 01.02.2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Jaunpur in Misc. Case No. 102/2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 81 of 2021 under Section 377, 352, 504 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Khutahan, District-Jaunpur by which the criminal appeal No.88 of 2021 was rejected.

3. As per the version of the FIR lodged by Sanjeet Singh (informant) father of the victim, it is alleged that on 04.04.2021 at 5.00 P.M. the accused revisionist and co-accused Nitin Tiwari lured his son (victim) aged about 06 years and took him to a secrete place where the accused persons established unnatural relation with the son of the informant. At that point of time, the informant was not present at his home as he had gone to his relatives' house and when he came back to his house, his wife and the victim had apprised him about the incident. Thereafter, when he went to the house of the accused-persons and made complaint, they abused him in filthy-language and also threatened him. On the basis of the said FIR, Case Crime No. 0081/2021 under Sections 377, 352, 504 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act was registered and investigated upon. During the investigation, after collection of some evidence and recording of statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses, the victim was medically examined and his statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. were also recorded.

4. During the proceedings before the Juvenile Justice Board, after giving him benefit of one year on lowerside, though in medical report his age on 12.11.2021 was shown about 19 years, the revisionist was found to be the age of below 18 years on the date of the incident and was declared juvenile vide order dated 18.11.2021. A bail application through his guardian was moved before the Juvenile Justice Board, Jaunpur, but the same was rejected. Thereafter, a criminal appeal No.88/2021 was preferred by the father and guardian of the juvenile and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 01.02.2022.

5. Aggrieved by the above orders, this criminal revision has been preferred to set aside the same and to admit the juvenile on bail.

6. First and foremost contention is that gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration for refusing bail to the juvenile as has been held by a coordinate Benches of this Court in Criminal Revision No.379 of 2009 (Shiv Kumar vs. State of U.P.) decided on 22.12.2009, Criminal Revision No. 4141 of 2017 (Dharmendra vs. State of U.P.) decided on 13.04.2018, Criminal Revision No.1693 of 2021 (Juvenile X vs. State of U.P.) decided on 22.02.2022 and Criminal Revision No.860 of 2022 (X vs. State of U.P.) decided on 21.03,2022 and Criminal Revision No. 1852 of 2015 (Amit vs. State of U.P.) decided on 16.03.2016.

7. In Criminal Revision No. 1852 of 2015 (Amit vs. State of U.P.) decided on 16.03.2016, the Court referred to the earlier judgement in Vijendra Kumar Mali vs. State of U.P., 2003 (1) J.I.C. 103, wherein it was observed 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 the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 exist. So far as the ground of gravity is concerned, it is not covered under the relevant provisions. If the bail application of the juvenile was to be considered under the provision