JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shri Kant Tripathi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA and perused the record. 2. This is a revision against the judgement and order dated 5.7.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Agra in Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal No. 114 of 2010 (Amit Kumar v State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 967 of 2009, under Sections 302/307 IPC, P.S. Barnahal, District Mainpuri 3. It is alleged that on 14.11.2009 at about 11.00 p.m. the revisionist killed his own sister (Seema) only due to the reason that she has herself solemnized marriage with one Lattha alias Upendra Singh. 3. The Juvenile Justice Board, Mainpuri has already declared the revisionist as juvenile but refused to release him on bail vide its order dated 12.5.2010 on the ground that the release of the revisionist on bail would bring him into the association with known criminals and also expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger and as such the ends of justice would be defeated. 4. The appeal filed by the revisionist was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Agra mainly on the ground that the release of the revisionist would defeat the ends of justice and also on the ground that the cases of honour killing have become rampant in the society these days. The learned Sessions Judge placed reliance on the case of Nangu alias Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., 2007(1) JIC 701 , which was a case of rape on a six years old girl and this Court thought it proper not to release the person, who was alleged to have committed the rape on the minor girl. 5. The learned Sessions Judge placed reliance on the case of Nangu alias Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., 2007(1) JIC 701 , which was a case of rape on a six years old girl and this Court thought it proper not to release the person, who was alleged to have committed the rape on the minor girl. 5. In view of the fact that the revisionist is a juvenile, his bail prayer is liable to be considered in accordance with Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act 2000 (in short ‘the Act’), which provides : “Section 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 incharge 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.” 6. A perusal of Section 12 of the Act reveals that a juvenile is entitled to bail notwithstanding gravity of the crime. His bail can be refused only when there are reasonable grounds for believing that his 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. 7. His bail can be refused only when there are reasonable grounds for believing that his 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. 7. It was not disputed that the revisionist has no criminal background. He is alleged to have killed his own sister on account of the annoyance that she had herself solemnized marriage with one Lattha alias Upendra Singh against the wishes of her family members. There is no evidence to show that in the event of the release of the revisionist on bail he will come into the association with any known criminal or he will be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. Even gravity of the crime is no ground to deny bail to juveniles nor it can be taken as a ground to hold that the release of the juvenile would defeat the ends of justice. The revisionist is not a professional criminal nor has any association with any known or unknown criminal. The offence was committed by him on account of his being highly annoyed from the marriage performed by his sister against the wishes of his and his family members. In this view of the matter, it would not be in the interest of justice to keep such a juvenile in custody. Therefore his release on bail would not in any way defeat the ends of justice. 8. In the case of Vijendra Kumar Mali v. State of U.P., 2003 (1) JIC 103, this Court has held : “........ 6. This Court in a number of judgments has categorically held that bail to the juvenile can only be refused if anyone of the grounds existed. So far as the ground of gravity is concerned, it is not covered under the above provisions of the Act. If the bail application of the juvenile was to be considered under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there would have been absolutely no necessity for the enactment of the aforesaid Act. The language of Section 12 of the Act itself lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, the juvenile accused shall be released. The language of Section 12 of the Act itself lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, the juvenile accused shall be released. Not only this, the Parliament re-considered the entire matter and repealed the old Act of 1986 by introducing the new Act No. 56 of 2000, raising the age from 16 to 18 years. This has been done keeping in view the welfare of the child so that even after committing an offence a child may not become a hardened criminal but he may reform himself.” 9. And in Akash Rai v. State of U.P., 2009(65) ACC 522, this Court again held as under : “............................. As per provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 except on the ground mentioned therein bail is mandatory to the Juvenile. It appears from the Judgement and order passed by the Session Judge, Mau that the revisionist is Class XIIth Student and according to the report of the District Probation Officer, Ballia he has committed Crime due to company of bad elements. The District Probation Officer’s report is based on no evidence and it appears that simply to make a ground that the rervisionist may not be released on bail the report has been submitted. There is nothing on record that after release the revisionist would come in association with any known Criminal or exposed him to moral, Physical or Psychological danger or that of his release would defeat ends of justice. Father of revisionist has given an undertaking about the revisionist’s welfare and education.” 10. To combat the aforesaid citations, the learned counsel for the revisionist has cited the cases of Deepak Kumar v. State of U.P., 2003(1) UPCrR 616, Vikky @ Vikram Singh (Minor) v. State of U.P. and others, 2003(1) UPCrR 526, Rajendra v. State of U.P., 2003(1) UPCrR 149 and Shiv Kumar @ Sadhu v. State of U.P., 2010(1) ADJ 718 (LB). 11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that Section 12 of the Act is fully attracted in this case, therefore, it would be just and expedient to enlarge the revisionist Amit Kumar on bail. 12. The revision is allowed. 11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that Section 12 of the Act is fully attracted in this case, therefore, it would be just and expedient to enlarge the revisionist Amit Kumar on bail. 12. The revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 5.7.2010 passed by the Appellate Court as well as the order dated 12.5.2010 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Agra in the aforesaid criminal case are hereby quashed. 13. Let the revisionist Amit Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond to be executed by his guardian and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Agra. ————