JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred by the juvenile Ram Kishan Yadav through his father Rajendra Prasad Yadav, under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short Act of 2015) against the order dated 18.12.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Sultanpur, in Criminal Appeal No.128 of 2019 Ram Kishan Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and also against order dated 21.11.2019 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board Sultanpur, in Case Crime No. 208 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) and Section 3(2)(V) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short SC/ST Act), Police Station Kudwar, District Sultanpur. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this Criminal Revision are as under:- 3. A First Information Report bearing Case Crime No. 208 of 2019 was presented by complainant Sher Bahadur alleging that his brother Sunny Gautam went out from the home on 05.05.2019 at about 11:00 am. When he did not come back the family members became worried. On 06.05.2019 in the evening at about 7:00 pm the brother-in-law of the complainant inquired on telephone about the whereabouts of Sunny Gautam. The complainant told him that he had gone out, on this point his brother-in-law informed him that some unknown persons have killed Sunny and threw the dead body in the forest of Purwa Majre Sohgauli, Sultanpur. On this information the complainant reached on the spot and recognized the dead body as of his brother Sunny Gautam. After cremation on 07.05.2019 he went to lodge the First Information Report. 4. Investigation was made. During the investigation the name of this revisionist came into light on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Anil Kumar Yadav whose name was disclosed by the witnesses with whom the deceased was last seen. 5. The revisionist claimed the juvenility and was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 22.10.2019. His age was found 15 years 7 months and 5 days on the date of incident. The revisionist/juvenile moved his bail application before Juvenile Justice Board, which was rejected by the Principal Magistrate of the Board on 21.11.2019. 5. The revisionist claimed the juvenility and was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 22.10.2019. His age was found 15 years 7 months and 5 days on the date of incident. The revisionist/juvenile moved his bail application before Juvenile Justice Board, which was rejected by the Principal Magistrate of the Board on 21.11.2019. Against that order an appeal was preferred by the juvenile under Section 101 of the Act of 2015, that too was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO (The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences), Act Sultanpur per order dated 18.12.2019. Being aggrieved of the above order and judgment the juvenile preferred this revision. 6. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ashwani Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. None turned up on behalf of opposite party No.2, despite of sufficient service of notice. 7. Learned counsel for the juvenile/revisionist submitted that the impugned judgment of the appellate court and order of the Juvenile Board have been passed in transgression of the settled law relating to Juveniles. The bail for juvenile can be denied only in three conditions mentioned in the provisio to Section 12(1) of the Act, of 2015, not otherwise. Juvenile was not named in the F.I.R., his name came into light on the basis of confessional statement made by co-accused who was named by the witnesses in their statements. Another co-accused Rahul Yadav, who was an adult whose name also came into light on the basis of the confessional statement made by the same co-accused Anil Kumar Yadav was granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1692 of 2019. 8. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no material on record to bring the case of the juvenile/revisionist under the exceptions given in Section 12 of the Act of 2015, hence the judgment and order passed by both the courts below deserve to be set-aside, as they are against the law. 9. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand opposed the contentions of the counsel for the revisionist and submitted that the revisionist/juvenile alongwith other co-accused persons murdered the brother of the complainant and threw the dead body in the forest to destroy the evidence. Hence this revision should be dismissed. However the learned A.G.A. did not dispute the parity with co-accused Rahul Yadav. 10. Hence this revision should be dismissed. However the learned A.G.A. did not dispute the parity with co-accused Rahul Yadav. 10. Considered the rival submissions and perused the record. Section 12 (1) of the Act of 2015, in this regard lays down 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." 11. Thus it is law that a bail application of a juvenile can be rejected only :- (i) If there appears reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into association with any known criminal; or, (ii) expose the juvenile to moral, physical or psychological danger; or, (iii) release of the juvenile would defeat the ends of justice. 12. In the present matter the Principal Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board, came to the conclusion that if the juvenile /applicant was released on bail then it would cause moral, physical and psychological danger to him, and ends of justice stand defeated. 13. Legal position is that, for a juvenile in conflict with law bail is the Rule. The bail application of a juvenile can be rejected exceptionally. 14. The Appellate Court while confirming the order of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board concluded that the matter of the applicant/juvenile falls within the exceptions given in the proviso to Section 12(1). 13. Legal position is that, for a juvenile in conflict with law bail is the Rule. The bail application of a juvenile can be rejected exceptionally. 14. The Appellate Court while confirming the order of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board concluded that the matter of the applicant/juvenile falls within the exceptions given in the proviso to Section 12(1). If he is released on bail, then he will come in association with "unknown" criminals which will cause moral, physical and psychological danger to the juvenile. He also concluded that release will defeat the ends of justice and dismissed the appeal of the juvenile. 15. In the report of District Probation Officer available on record as Annexure No.9 no previous criminal antecedents of juvenile have been mentioned. The family status is average. It has been mentioned that step brother of the applicant Anil Yadav and one another Rahul were also accused in crime and they both are detained in District Jail of Sultanpur. The possibility of committing the crime again by the juvenile cannot be ruled out. There is need of better guardianship for the moral upliftment of the juvenile. No bad habit of the juvenile has been mentioned in the report. Further as pointed out by the revisionist counsel that an adult co-accused Rahul Yadav whose case stands on similar footing as his name also came into light on the basis of confessional statement made by co-accused Anil Kumar Yadav has been admitted to bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.11.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 1692 of 2019. 16. The fact that apart from juvenility the case of this revisionist stands on similar footing as that of co-accused Rahul Yadav, has not been disputed by the learned Additional Government Advocate. If an adult offender having similar role is enlarged on bail, then certainly juvenile in conflict with law on the same charge and evidence would also be entitled to bail. 17. In Dharmendra (Juvenile) Vs. State of U.P. and others in Criminal Revision No. 141 of 2017 the co-ordinate Bench of Allahabad High Court has observed as under:- "10. The matter can be looked at from another vantage. 17. In Dharmendra (Juvenile) Vs. State of U.P. and others in Criminal Revision No. 141 of 2017 the co-ordinate Bench of Allahabad High Court has observed as under:- "10. The matter can be looked at from another vantage. In case the revisionist were an adult and stood charged of the offence that he faces with a weak circumstantial evidence of last seen and confession to the police, in all probability, it would have entitled him to bail pending trial. If on the kind of evidence forthcoming an adult would be entitled to bail, denying bail to a child in conflict with law may be denying the juvenile/ child in conflict with law the equal protection of laws guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. 11. The rule in Section 12(1) of the Act is in favour of bail always to a juvenile/ child in conflict with law except when the case falls into one or the other categories of denial contemplated by the proviso. It is not the rule about bail in Section 12 of the Act that in case a child in conflict with law is brought before the Board or Court, his case is not to be seen on merits prima facie about his complicity at all for the purpose granting him bail; and all that has been done is to see if his case falls in one or the other exceptions, where he can be denied bail. The rule in Section 12 sanctioning bail universally to every child in conflict with law presupposes that there is a prima facie case against him in the assessment of the Board or the Court based on the evidence placed at that stage. It is where a case against a child in conflict with law is prima facie made out that the rule in Section 12(1) of the Act that sanctions bail as a rule, except the three categories contemplated by the proviso comes into play. It is certainly not the rule, and, in the opinion of the Court cannot be so, that a case on materials and evidence collected not being made out against a child at all, his case has to be tested on the three parameters where bail may be denied presuming that a prima facie case is constructively there. It is certainly not the rule, and, in the opinion of the Court cannot be so, that a case on materials and evidence collected not being made out against a child at all, his case has to be tested on the three parameters where bail may be denied presuming that a prima facie case is constructively there. Thus, it would always have to be seen whether a case prima facie on merits against a child in conflict with law is there on the basis of material produced by the prosecution against him. If it is found that a prima facie case on the basis of material produced by the prosecution is there that would have led to a denial of a bail to an adult offender, in that case also the Rule in Section 12(1) of the Act mandates that bail is to be granted to a juvenile/ child in conflict with law except where his case falls into any of the three disentitling categories contemplated by the proviso." 18. There is no dispute that revisionist has been declared juvenile. His age was found 15 years, 7 months and 5 days, on the date of incident. Co-accused Rahul Yadav (adult) whose case stands on similar footing has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench (supra). If an adult offender is granted bail, whose case stands on similar footing as of juvenile, then the juvenile apart from special provisions for bail is also entitled for bail. Even in the report of District Probation Officer, there is no specific mention that if the juvenile released on bail, he will come into association of "known criminals". District Probation Officer has mentioned in the report that juvenile needs a better guardianship. The father of the juvenile through whom revision has been preferred has written in his affidavit that the family members of the revisionist are educated, well settled and are living peaceful life together. After release of the revisionist, he shall be living in custody of his parents and will keep distance from any kind of moral activities /personalities. 19. In the light of above, discussion the case of the revisionist/juvenile does not fall in any of the three exceptions provided under the proviso to section 12(1) of the Act of 2015, so as to deprive the juvenile of the liberty of bail. 19. In the light of above, discussion the case of the revisionist/juvenile does not fall in any of the three exceptions provided under the proviso to section 12(1) of the Act of 2015, so as to deprive the juvenile of the liberty of bail. Hence impugned order passed by Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board dated 21.11.2019 as well as the judgment and order dated 18.12.2019 of the appellate court passed in appeal deserves to be set-aside. 20. Revision is allowed. 21. The order passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board dated 21.11.2019 and judgment dated 18.12.2019 passed by Appellate Court are hereby set-aside. 22. Let the revisionist/juvenile (Ram Kishan Yadav) be released on bail in Case Crime No. 208 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kudwar, District Sultanpur and be given in custody of his father on his furnishing a personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board, Sultanpur subject to following conditions :- (i) That the father of the juvenile shall 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 he will ensure that the juvenile do not repeat the offence. (ii) The father will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that he will encourage the juvenile to pursue his studies. (iii) The revisionist Ram Kishan Yadav and his father Rajendra Prasad Yadav 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, Sultanpur on such periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board determines. (v) The party shall file a computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. (vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. (v) The party shall file a computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. (vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. (vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.