RAVINDRA SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is preferred by the revisionist Ankit Upadhaya being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28. 10. 2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, court No. 3, farrukhabad in Criminal Bail No. 36 of 2005 whereby the bail was dismissed and the prayer for releasing the revisionist on bail was refused and the order dated 7. 10. 2005 passed by the Juvenile justice Board; whereby the prayer for releasing the revisionist was refused. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief of this case are that an FIR was lodged by Prem Pal Varshney on 01. 11. 2004 at 1 p. m. at P. S. Auraiya in Case Crime No. 320 of 2004 under Sections 302, 394, 201, IPC. It was lodged against the unknown persons. But during investigation, the name of the revisionist was disclosed by the co-accused before the I. O, The only allegation against the revisionist is the confessional statement of the co-accused recorded by the I. O. and there is no other evidence against the revisionist. The revisionist is a minor. He has been declared juvenile under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. But the prayer for releasing him on bail has been refused on 07. 10. 2005 by the Juvenile Justice Board, farrukhabad. Against the order dated 7. 10. 2005, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Farrukhabad, the revisionist filed the Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2005, the same has been dismissed by learned additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Farrukhabad, on 28. 10. 2005. ( 3 ) HEARD Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Dev Prakash Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A. ( 4 ) IT is contended by the 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 become final. Advocate assisted by Sri Dev Prakash Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A. ( 4 ) IT is contended by the 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 become final. The revisionist 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 release would defeat the ends of justice as envisaged by the 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 alter considering all the facts and the circumstances of the case and the impugned orders are well reasoned. ( 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 alter 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 submissions made by the counsel for the revisionist and the A. G. A. and from the perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that there is no such finding recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring him into the association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The appellate Court also has not recorded any such finding, but without any substance, only on the basis of the presumption or hypothesis it is mentioned that there will be some possibility to bring the revisionist into association of the co-accused or the people of such nature. This finding is without fact. Therefore, both the impugned orders are illegal which have not been passed in accordance with the provisions of law, therefore, the impugned orders dated 28. 10. 2005 and 07. 10. 2005 are set aside. ( 7 ) IN view of the above discussion, the revision is allowed and the orders dated 28. 10. 2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge/court No. 3, Farrukhabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no. Nil of 2005 are set aside. ( 8 ) LET the revisionist be released on bail on his furnishing a 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, and (2) shall appear before the Trial Court on each and every date fixed by the Court concerned. . .