The gravity of the offence is not a relevant consideration for refusing bail to a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act. The best interest of the juvenile and the concerns of society at large should be considered in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

1. It appears that name of the revisionist-juvenile has been disclosed in the memo of revision. This fault from the side of revisionist escaped detection by the Registry. The concerned Officer of the Registry is directed to delete the name of the revisionist-minor from the title of the revision as fed and shown in the data on website and represent him as "Minor 'X' Through His Natural Guardian Father Alok Kumar Srivastava".

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

3. This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 has been filed on behalf of the minor 'X' through his natural guardian/father Alok Kumar Srivastava S/o Dinesh Narayan R/o Mohalla Ashok Nagar Vanshi Nagla, Near Neelkanth Mandi, Police Station Subhash Nagar, Bareilly with the prayer to admit the minor to bail alongwith the prayer to set aside the order dated 06.02.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly and order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 2, Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No. 16/2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 937 of 2020 under Sections 376AB, 323 IPC and 5(Da)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Subhash Nagar, District-Bareilly by which the criminal appeal was rejected.

4. As per the version of the FIR, the juvenile abducted a nine years old daughter of the informant on 02.12.2020 at about 8 pm from her house when she was alone, on the pretext of getting a quilt from his house and took her to the roof of his own house which was under construction and ravished her. The FIR was lodged at 02.07 hours on 02/03.12.2020. On the basis of this FIR Crime No. 0937/2020 under Sections 376AB/323 IPC and Section 5(Da)/6 of POCSO Act was registered at Police Station Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly, and investigated upon.

5. A bail application was preferred before the Juvenile Justice Board through his father on 22.01.2021 and the same was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board mainly on the basis of the social investigation reports submitted by the District Probation Officer. The appeal preferred against the above order before the children Court was also dismissed.

6. Aggrieved by the above two orders, the revisionist has come in criminal revision before this Court.

7. It is contended on behalf of the juvenile that the learned courts below did not consider the medical report of the victim which showed no mark of injury and that the FIR was lodged after a long delay. It is also contended that the Juvenile Justice Board had rejected the bail application on the ground of gravity of offence which is against the settled position of law. There has been no eye-witness of the incident. The lower appellate court did not apply its independent mind and simply concurred with the opinion of the Juvenile Justice Board. Hence, the orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

8. 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 Bench of 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.

9. 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 it is 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 the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 existed. So far as the ground of gravity is concerned, it is not covered under the relevant provisions. If the bai