Court No. - 80

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2497 of 2019

Revisionist :- Km. Anju Yadav (Minor)

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- Shivajee Srivastava,Ashwani Kumar

Rai,Vijai Bahadur Yadav

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar,Sarvesh

Kumar Singh

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

1. Heard Sri Shivajee Srivastava and Sri Ashwani Kumar Rai,

learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Pramod Kumar, leaned

counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the

State.

2. Record reveals that bail of juvenile-revisionist involved in

Case Crime No. 298 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149,

302, 352 I.P.C., P.S. Haldharpur, District Mau has been rejected

by Juvenile Justice Board, Mau vide judgement and order dated

15.2.2019.

3. Appeal there-against has also been dismissed vide judgement

and order dated 8.5.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,

F.T.C. Room No. 1, Mau in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2019.

4. Both the orders of Courts below are impugned in the present

criminal revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the

revisionist is a minor girl and she has been falsely implicated in

the present case. No offence against the revisionist is made out

and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide

intention for the purposes of harassment. He further submitted

that F.I.R. has been lodged against 10 accused persons

including the revisionist. Major accused Kedar has already been

granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal

Misc. Bail Application No. 12863 of 2019 vide order dated

29.3.2019, copy of the order has been annexed at page no. 120

of the affidavit. Role of the revisionist stands of identical

footing, hence the revisionist is also entitled for bail.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for State opposed the

prayer for bail and supported the judgements of Courts below.

7. As per prosecution story, the incident has taken place on

30.11.2018 at about 8:00 AM. Accused persons assaulted

Sandeep and Balmati, who received serious injuries and victim

Sandeep succumbed to injuries. Accused Rameshwar shot

victim Sandeep. Juvenile revisionist is alleged to have assaulted

the victims with Lathi and Danda.

8. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Act, 2000 provides the provisions as to when bail to a

juvenile can be refused.

"12 Bail of Juvenile.--(1) When any person accused of a

bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is

arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a board,

such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other

law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or

without surety or placed under the supervision of a Probation

Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person but

he shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds

for believing that the release is likely to bring him into

association with any known criminal or expose him to moral,

physical or psychological danger or that his release would

defeat the ends of justice.

(2) When such person having been arrested is not released on

bail under sub-section (1) by the officer in-charge of the police

station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an

observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be

brought before a Board.

(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-

section(1) by the Board, it shall, instead of committing him to

prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a

place of safety for such period during the pendency of inquiry

regarding him as may be specified in the order."

9. In view of the aforesaid provision, the bail application of the

juvenile can be rejected only on the existence of the

aforementioned grounds enumerated in Section 12 of the

Juvenile Justice