JUDGMENT :

Narendra Kumar Johari, J.

1. The instant Revision has been filed on behalf of Revisionist-Juvenile through his father/natural guardian against the order dated 19.01.2022 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Session Judge, Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2021 (Juvenile through natural guardian father Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 17.09.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur in Case No.111/2020, arising out of Case Crime No.489/2020, under Sections 376-A, B, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Bindki, District -Fatehpur.

2. The record indicates that notice has sufficiently been served on opposite party No.2 but none is present on behalf of the opposite party No.2.

3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. The facts of the case in brief are that on 18.11.2020 when the minor daughter of informant had gone for grazing the goats the revisionist/juvenile penetrated his finger in her vagina which caused pain to the victim consequently she started weeping and crying. Hearing the alarm of victim, the witness Khushi reached on the spot, then after that the revisionist by extending threat for life, ran away from the spot. The private part of his daughter was bleeding. The F.I.R. of the occurrence was lodged on 18.11.2020 at about 23.05 hours against the sole revisionist.

5. The revisionist approached to the Juvenile Justice Board stating that he was innocent. he had been implicated falsely in the case. He had no criminal history and he was not involved in any criminal activities also. Vide order dated 04.09.2021, the Juvenile Justice Board, Fatehpur declared him juvenile, his age on the date of occurrence was found 15 years 04 months and 03 days. Accordingly, the revisionist had been declared juvenile in conflict with law. Subsequently, an application for bail was moved by the revisionist before the Juvenile Justice Board, which was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 17.09.2021 on the ground that the Juvenile had the offence which is heinous in nature. If the juvenile is released on bail, then in that case his release will defeat the ends of justice. Apart from that his release will also affect the rights of victim adversely. His moral, physical and psychological development will also be affected adversely. Against the above order, the juvenile filed the criminal appeal No. 53 of 2021, before the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Session Judge, Fatehpur which too was dismissed by the appellate court vide order dated 19.01.2022 on the ground that if the appellant/juvenile is released on bail his psychological, physical and moral development will be affected adversely and the object of law shall also be defeated. Against both the rejection orders, present criminal revision has been filed through natural guardian/father of juvenile.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that revisionist has falsely been implicated in the case, he has no previous criminal history. He is in observation home since 19.11.2020. In the medical examination report, the hymen of victim was found intact. Only redness was found in the area of introitus with oedema which can be caused by victim herself. The medical examination has been done within 24 hours of alleged offence wherein no sign of bleeding has been found. Accordingly, the medical evidence is not supporting the F.I.R. version.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further stated that the ingredients of proviso of Section 12 (1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which provides the ground for rejection of bail, is not applicable in the present case. If the juvenile is released on bail, the father of revisionist undertakes that he will supervise him and will provide better atmosphere for his over all development and educate him. He further assures that his son will not misuse the liberty of bail. He will also take