JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Imran Ullah, learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist, Sri Girish Vishwakarma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Perused the record.

3. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Allahabad and the order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2022 by which the order of the Juvenile Justice Board declining bail to the juvenile was affirmed in a matter arising out of Case Crime No.90 of 2021, under sections-147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 307, 302 I.P.C., Police Station-Sarai Inayat, District-Prayagraj.

4. The prosecution case is that on 10.03.2021 Rizwan Ahmad, his wife Sabiha Fatima, his daughter Bushra Fatima and three others came holding iron rods and other weapons and attacked Sappan Devi and her infant daughter in the backdrop of their exerting pressure on the complainant side for giving favourable statements in a criminal case relating to cow slaughter, which was pending against the accused side. All the accused persons named in the F.I.R. attacked the complainant side in which Sappan Devi sustained head injuries, her infant daughter who was lying on a cot was thrown on the ground and was hit by an iron rod on her head and she died before she could be given medical treatment; she sustained fracture in head and could not survive. The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged on the same day within a span of few hours; the medical examination of Sappan Devi showed several lacerated wound on occipital region and was advised X-ray. As per papers on record, Sappan Devi lost consciousness, she had to be admitted and she remained admitted at Shakuntala Multispeciality Hospital as an indoor patient from 11.03.2021 to 17.03.2021. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under sections 302, 307, 504, 506, 323, 147 and 148 I.P.C.

5. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that there is another side of the story; infact on the basis of application moved under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., an F.I.R. got registered from the side of the revisionist to the effect that the revisionist was intercepted when she was going to her field and was dragged inside a field and was put to sexual assault on 10.03.2021 by Sunil Kushwaha (husband of Sappan Devi) and Raja Kushwaha (devar of Sappan Devi); the F.I.R. being Case Crime No.336 of 2021, under section 450, 376D, 323, 504 I.P.C. and section-¾ POCSO Act was lodged on 19.09.2021, which also mentioned name of Sappan Devi, who allegedly kept reviling them; the victim (the instant revisionist) in this F.I.R. sustained several injuries; she was medically examined; the real facts were different as evident from this cross F.I.R. lodged by the revisionist/juvenile side; the court besides ignoring the broader principles of law as applicable in the matters of bail to a juvenile and the mandate of Section-12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, ignored other material facts and circumstances of the case; bail has been declined by bringing the case within the proviso to Section-12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 in an arbitrary manner; all the other adult members of the family against whom the complainant threw allegations of attacking Sappan Devi and her infant child have been granted bail; in this view of the matter, a girl about 16 years of age should not be detained just because she is minor. It is also said that the comments and suggestions of District Probation Officer in social investigation report do not match the inquiry done by him, hence it cannot be relied upon and cannot be interpreted in such a manner so as to decline bail to her.

6. These facts are not disputed that the juvenile was found to be aged about 16 years and 3 months on the date of occurrence and that she is detained in an observation/juvenile protection home since more than a