JUDGMENT : Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J. 1. Heard Sri M.C. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Chandra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the opposite party no. 1. 2. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist for setting aside the judgment and order dated 24.06.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bulandshahr in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2015 (Pankaj v. State of U.P. and judgment and order dated 28.05.2015 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bulandshahr in Bail Application No. 52 of 2015-State v. Pankaj Kumar, and with further prayer to release the revisionist on bail in Case Crime No. 65 of 2015, under Section 376-D I.P.C. and Section 4 POCSO Act, Police Station Arnia, District Bulandshahr in Case No. 52 of 2015-State v. Pankaj Kumar. 3. The F.I.R. version in narrow compass is as follows:- 4. The informant Smt. Tarawati Devi wife of Shishram, resident of village Balrau Arnia, District Bulandshahr has presented a written application on 27.02.2015 before the Station Officer, Police Station Arnia, District Bulandshahr that on 22.2.2015 when her daughter Km. XYZ aged about 15 years went to attend the call of nature in the fields near engine situated at the field of Khan Chandra then Kapil son of Kisan, put country made pistol on the ear of her daughter dragged her along with his three friends into the wheat fields of Devendra and all four namely Kapil son of Kisan, Sandeep son of Tekchandra, Shiv Shanker son of Sukhai and Mukaddam alias Ajit son of Sukhpal and Pankaj son of Pappu committed rape upon her daughter Km. XYZ. Her daughter stated this fact to her when she returned back to home. Due to fear she could not make report till now. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the prosecutrix is major and as per medical report, she was pregnant of 18 weeks, which shows that the prosecutrix was already having illicit relation with someone else but the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that no mark of injury was found on any part of the body of the prosecutrix and hymen was found old torn and healed. She did not enjoy the good reputation and unnecessarily she is trying to defame the lads of her village. It is further submitted that no mark of injury was found on any part of the body of the prosecutrix and hymen was found old torn and healed. She did not enjoy the good reputation and unnecessarily she is trying to defame the lads of her village. It is next submitted that the F.I.R. is too much delayed and there is no explanation of this inordinate delay. It is also submitted that the findings of the courts below that the conduct of the revisionist is not good and he is having association with men of criminal nature, are based on surmises and conjectures, therefore, there was no such material to arrive at such conclusion. It is contended that both the courts below committed manifest error of law in rejecting the bail application of the revisionist who is juvenile aged about 16 years, 11 months and 14 days at the time of the alleged incident. It is further contended that under the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, as a general Rule, the juvenile has to be released on bail unless and until there is material on record to establish that the release will likely to bring juvenile into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. It is also contended that the report of the District Probation Officer is sketchy and without any basis. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contentions:- (1) Amit Yadav @ Monu @ Bebo (Minor) v. State of U.P. and another, 2016(4) ADJ 137 . (2) Criminal Revision No. 718 of 2016-Jitendra Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and another decided on 11.7.2016. (3) Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, 2006 CRI. L.J. 1373. (4) A Juvenile v. State of Orissa, 2009 CRI. L.J. 2002. 7. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist. 8. The facts of the present case are different from the facts mentioned in the above cited cases. 9. I have gone through the Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The relevant portion of Section 12 of the Act is quoted verbatim as follows:- "12. 8. The facts of the present case are different from the facts mentioned in the above cited cases. 9. I have gone through the Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The relevant portion of Section 12 of the Act is quoted verbatim as follows:- "12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law-(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or 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 person: Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision." 10. In the context, I have also gone through the following judgments of this Court as well as of the Apex Court. 1. Monu @ Moni @ Rahul @ Rohit v. State of U.P., 2011 (61)ACR 2582. 2. Mohit v. State of U.P. and another, 2013 (83) ALLCC, 242. 3. Virendra v. State of U.P., 2015 (1) ACR 629. 4. Shabbir v. State of U.P. and others, 2015 (88) ALLCC 161. 5. Sonu Tomar v. State of U.P., 2015 (2) ACR 2284. 6. Amit Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (93) ALLCC 571. 11. The Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan and another, (2012) 5 SCC 201 has cautioned the Courts to be more sensitive in dealing with juvenile in cases of serious nature like sexual molestation, rape, gang-rape murder etc. The relevant extract of the said judgment in paragraphs 3 and 23 are being reproduced below in reference:- "3. The relevant extract of the said judgment in paragraphs 3 and 23 are being reproduced below in reference:- "3. Juvenile Justice Act was enacted with a laudable object of providing a separate forum or a special court for holding trial of children/juvenile by the juvenile court as it was felt that children become delinquent by force of circumstance and not by choice and hence they need to be treated with care and sensitivity while dealing and trying cases involving criminal offence. But when an accused is alleged to have committed a heinous offence like rape and murder or any other grave offence when he ceased to be a child on attaining the age of 18 years, but seeks protection of the Juvenile Justice Act under the ostensible plea of being a minor, should such an accused be allowed to be tried by a juvenile court or should he be referred to a competent court of criminal jurisdiction where the trial of other adult persons are held. 23. ....Similarly, if the conduct of an accused or the method and manner of commission of the offence indicates an evil and a well planned design of the accused committing the offence which indicates more towards the matured skill of an accused than that of an innocent child, then in the absence of reliable documentary evidence in support of the age of the accused, medical evidence indicating that the accused was a major cannot be allowed to be ignored taking shelter of the principle of benevolent legislation like the Juvenile Justice Act, subverting the course of justice as statutory protection of the Juvenile Justice Act is meant for minors who are innocent law breakers and not accused of matured mind who uses the plea of minority as a ploy or shield to protect himself from the sentence of the offence committed by him." 12. As per certificate issued by office of the Chief Medical Officer, Bulandshahr, age of the victim girl XYZ has been mentioned as 16 years. As per report of OPD slip issued by X-Ray Department, B.B.D. Hospital, Bulandshahr of the victim Km. XYZ dated 2.3.2015, her pregnancy is about 18.2 weeks. As per certificate issued by office of the Chief Medical Officer, Bulandshahr, age of the victim girl XYZ has been mentioned as 16 years. As per report of OPD slip issued by X-Ray Department, B.B.D. Hospital, Bulandshahr of the victim Km. XYZ dated 2.3.2015, her pregnancy is about 18.2 weeks. As per statement of the victim girl XYZ recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 02.03.2015 she has clearly stated that five months ago from the date of recording of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she was gang raped by lads namely Kapil, Pankaj son of Pappu, Shiv Shanker son of Subai, Ajit son of Satpal, Sandeep son of Teck Chandra and on 22.02.2015 at about 6.30 P.M. again the aforementioned boys committed gang rape upon her in the wheat fields. 13. The rider of the 'person's release would defeat the ends of justice' requires attention. 14. The 'juvenile in conflict with law' does not entitle him to be released on bail solely on the ground of his juvenility. The juvenile offenders who have criminal tendencies and have inclination and attraction to commit crime "at the drop of a hat", should be segregated and should not be integrated to set the shield of this benevolent legislation. It is of paramount importance to upkeep and safeguard the larger interest of the society. Due to this, exception to the rule of bail to a juvenile has also been included. A too liberal interpretation in the matters related to ghastly crimes would definitely result in defeating the ends of justice. 15. The relevant extract of the judgment in Virendra v. State of U.P., 2015 (1) ACR 629 para 23 is quoted below:- "23. A citizen's claim to equality before the law is a claim of justice. Justice has been termed as the highest virtue. It has also been equated with fairness. Fairness connotes fairness to all i.e. equal treatment to all. Sense of injustice is a powerful human emotion. It is strongest when a person's own interests are harmed, but it also aroused in civilized people when they witness wrongs done to others. Ultimate object of every legal system is to secure justice which is at the centre of moral and social philosophy. The instinct for justice leads us to believe that right, and not might, is the true basis of society. Ultimate object of every legal system is to secure justice which is at the centre of moral and social philosophy. The instinct for justice leads us to believe that right, and not might, is the true basis of society. The principles of justice that define duties and rights should be neutral with respect to compacting conception of good life. Defeat of ends of justice is bound to result in injustice which produces conflict within the individual and sets him at variance with himself and with all who are just. Injustice is inseparable from virtue which consist of ethics and justice in universal sense. Injustice in the particular sense is the injustice that causes harm to others. Virtue based approach connects justice to reflection about good life. This approach ensures that justice means giving people what they morally deserve-allocating goods to reward and promote virtue. It is thus apparent that the concept of justice lies at the heart of moral philosophy where righteousness, fairness and truth are the basic values and it should include people from all walks of life. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that wellbeing of the community takes precedence over the liberty and preventing injustice would always be a pursuit of justice. Leaving society to live with persons of perverted nature would be an affront to the dignity of human beings and tends to promote anarchy and unrest in society which is sure to defeat the ends of justice." 16. It would not be out of context to cite the paragraphs 376 and 377 of the extract of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Essa @ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon (A-3) and others v. The State of Maharashtra, through STF, CBI Mumbai and others, JT 2013 (6) SC 1, which are quoted below: "376. While dealing with such an issue, the court must not lose sight of the fact that meaning of "ends of justice" essentially refers to justice to all the parties. This phrase refers to the best interest of the public within the four corners of the statute. In fact, it means preservation of proper balance between the Constitutional/Statutory rights of an individual and rights of the people at large to have the law enforced. The "ends of justice" does not mean vague and indeterminate notions of justice, but justice according to the law of the land. In fact, it means preservation of proper balance between the Constitutional/Statutory rights of an individual and rights of the people at large to have the law enforced. The "ends of justice" does not mean vague and indeterminate notions of justice, but justice according to the law of the land. (vide: State Bank of Patiala and others v. S.K. Sharma; and Mahadev Govind Gharge and others v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka. "377. Thus, the law has to be interpreted in such a manner that it develops coherently in accordance with the principles, so as to serve, even-handedly, the ends of justice." 17. In revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the revisional court cannot analyse and interfere in the findings of fact of the lower courts and appellate jurisdiction is not available to the revisional court to interfere in the findings of fact recorded by the courts below. 18. In view of the above discussions, the impugned orders show that the courts below have considered the correctness, legality and propriety of the matter and did not act with any irregularity at the time of giving findings of fact relating to revisionist. 19. There is no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the impugned orders. The revision lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. 20. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. 21. Interim order, if any, is vacated.