JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Singh, J.—This revision has been preferred by the revisionist Sumit Kumar, being aggrieved by the order dated 1-7-2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2005 whereby the appeal was dismissed by affirming the order dated 14-6-2005 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut whereby the prayer for bail in case Crime No. 25 of 2005 under Sections 302, 376, 201, I.P.C. Police Station Garh Mukteshwar, District Ghaziabad has been refused. 2. The facts, in brief, of this case are that the First Information Report of this case has been lodged by Harbir Singh on 4-2-2005 at 9.30 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 4-2-2005 at about 5.00 p.m. The First Information Report was lodged in Case Crime No. 25 of 2005 under Sections 376, 302 and 201, I.P.C., Police Station Garh Mukteshwar, District Ghaziabad against unknown miscreants. The applicant is not named in the First Information Report. The name of the applicant came in the light as an accused in the investigation. It is alleged that he was seen by some witness coming out from the sugarcane field from where the dead body was recovered. The revisionist claimed himself to be a juvenile and he has been declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board on 14-6-2005. Against the order dated 14-6-2005 the revisionist filed the Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2005, same has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Meerut on 1-7-2005. 3. Heard Sri Vikrant Rana, learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has been declared juvenile and that order has not been challenged by the State of U.P. or the first informant. Consequently, it has beconistme final. The revisions is entitled for bail because there is no finding recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board that there is any reasonable ground 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 released would defeat the ends of justice as envisaged by Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which reads as under : “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 but he shall not be so released if there appear 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 the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order.” 5. It is opposed by learned A.G.A. by submitting that there is no illegality in the impugned orders because both the orders have been passed after considering all the facts and the circumstances of the case and the impugned orders are well reasoned. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. and from the perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that the order declaring the revisionist to be juvenile has not been challenged by the State of U.P., it has become final. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. and from the perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that the order declaring the revisionist to be juvenile has not been challenged by the State of U.P., it has become final. The order refusing the bail by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate Court shows that there was no material or substance for believing that the release of the revisionist 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, as provided by Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, therefore the impugned orders have not been passed in accordance with the provisions of law, which are illegal and are hereby set aside. 7. In view of the above discussion, the revision is allowed and the impugned orders dated 1-7-2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 55, of 2005 and judgment and order dated 14-6-2005 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut are set aside. 8. Let the revisionist Sumit Kumar be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond of his natural guardian and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, on the condition that he, (1) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, (2) shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed by the Court concerned, (3) shall not come in association with any known criminal, and (4) shall not involve in any other criminal act. —————