JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal revision under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.09.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2019, by which the order dated 30.07.2019, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar in Bail Application No.22 of 2019 relating to Case Crime No. 65 of 2019, under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bhiti, District Ambedkar Nagar hsa been confirmed. 2. In this case an F.I.R. was lodged on 20.04.2019 to the effect that on 15.04.2019 prosecutrix had gone to attend her school but when she did not return from the School, a search was made and it was found that she had not gone to her school. Thereafter, from the reliable sources it was informed that named accused persons had managed her to elope with the revisionist. In this case initially F.I.R. was lodged under Section 363, 366 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act. It is submitted that when the prosecutrix was recovered after 3-4 days her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein no such element was stated that revisionist had taken her forcibly, rather she stated that she had gone to school and on the way co-accused met her and advised her that if she wants to do some job, she might get a good job and she could earn her livelihood. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are contrary to the parameters envisaged under the proviso to Section 12(1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in the matter of grant of bail to a juvenile. In short, the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is to the effect that there is nothing in the social investigation report or in any other evidence on record that may lead to the conclusion that the case of the revisionist falls within any of the three exceptions to the rule in favour of bail to a juvenile under the proviso to Section 12 (1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Section 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, is quoted as under :- "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." 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as learned Sessions Judge have not taken into account the report of District Probation Officer. In the report, no adverse remark has been made pertaining to revisionist. It is also not mentioned in the report of District Probation Officer that in case revisionist is released on bail his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the finding recorded by the Probation Officer is baseless and without any reason. Revisionist has no criminal history to his credit. Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon a case law reported in [2018 (1) JIC 357 (All)] : Rahul Patel Vs. State of U.P. & another, in which this Court in paragraph 8 has held as under:- "8. The Apex Court in a catena of judgments has constantly held that gravity of the offence is not a ground to deny bail to a juvenile accused. State of U.P. & another, in which this Court in paragraph 8 has held as under:- "8. The Apex Court in a catena of judgments has constantly held that gravity of the offence is not a ground to deny bail to a juvenile accused. Unless the conduct of the accused is such to indicate that in all likelihood, after being released on bail, the juvenile-accused will indulge into more crimes. If there are no imminent chances of his repeating the crime, bail to a juvenile should not be ordinarily refused." 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied upon the case law reported in [2018 (3) JIC 48 (All)] : Gurjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & another, wherein in paragraphs 17 & 18 the Hon'ble Court has held as under :- "17. A perusal of that evidence would show that it cannot be said that the offence, in fact, has been committed so daringly and outwardly that enlarging the revisionist on bail would defeat the ends of justice. In this connection the guidance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan and another, (2012) 5 SCC 201 may be quoted: "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. ...... 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." 18. There is no such finding or otherwise any material on record that the revisionist has committed the offence that indicates more towards the matured skill of an accused than an act of the child as held by their Lordships in Om Prakash (supra). There is nothing about the manner and method of the commission of the offence that indicates a well planned design. In fact, not much about the circumstances under which the alleged offence took place, where it was committed and by whom, has been dwelt upon. This matter is to be determined in the pending case before the Juvenile Justice Board. There is, however, in the opinion of the Court no such ground disentitling the juvenile to bail under the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act so as to keep him deprived of the company of his family which is the best school for any child. It is also not the case that it is a family of criminals and delinquents. The revisionist's family is a normal, average and happy family as the social investigation report would show, though they may not be an affluent family." 6. It is also submitted that the revisionist is in custody since 24.04.2019 and the trial may take some more time. 7. In view of the above circumstances, the revision is allowed. Impugned orders dated 20.09.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2019 (Manish Kanaujia Vs. It is also submitted that the revisionist is in custody since 24.04.2019 and the trial may take some more time. 7. In view of the above circumstances, the revision is allowed. Impugned orders dated 20.09.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2019 (Manish Kanaujia Vs. State of U.P. & another) and order dated 30.07.2019, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar in Bail Application No. 22 of 2019, relating to Crime No. 65 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bhiti, District Ambedkar Nagar are hereby set aside. The bail application of the revisionist is allowed. 8. Let the revisionist (Manish Kanaujia) through his natural guardian/father Ram Bakash be released on bail in Crime No. 65 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC & Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Bhiti, District Ambedkar Nagar on his father furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the natural guardian/father will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known criminal or be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence. (ii) that the father will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juvenile will be placed in a school and encouraged to his studies and not allow to waste his time in unproductive and mere recreational pursuits. (iii) The revisionist and his father will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Monday of every month with effect from the first Monday of the month next after release from custody, and, if during any calendar month the first Monday falls on a holiday then on the following working day. (iv) The District Probation Officer will keep strict vigil on the activities of the revisionist and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board determines.