JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/complainant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record. 2. This criminal revision has been filed on behalf of child in conflict with law through his father, the natural guardian against the judgment and order dated 04.11.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.142 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.1 of 2019, under sections 302, 201, 394, 411, IPC, Police Station Lohata, District Varanasi. 3. In brief the facts are that complainant Arun Kumar, lodged an FIR on 01.01.2019 at 14:41 O’clock that he received an information on mobile of his father from another mobile that a mutilated unknown dead body is lying near Kishaur Bridge, which is unidentifiable. On this information he reached near Kishaur Bridge and saw the dead body which was of Prem Chandra Singh, his uncle (elder brother of his father), who was residing at Parmanandpur, Police Station Shivpur. It appears that his uncle was brutally murdered and dead body thrown near Kishaur Bridge to conceal it. The skull of the dead body was badly mutilated and legs were tied. During investigation the name of revisionist-accused came in the light. He alongwith two other co-accused were arrested by the police on 14.01.2019 and from the possession of the revisionist-accused the Aadhar Card, A.T.M. Card of deceased, Rs.700/-cash and one bunch of keys and some looted articles (ornaments) and one mobile phone were recovered from his possession and at his instance one iron rod, which was used in the crime was also recovered. 4. The prosecution version is that the deceased was maternal grandfather (Chachera Nana) of the revisionist-accused and was a retired pharmacist. On 31.12.2018 he was alone at his house. At 8.30 P.M., the revisionist-accused with his two friends went to the house of the deceased on the pretext that his friend is ill. As deceased knew the revisionist (child in conflict with law) he opened the door and all the three entered into the house and when deceased was examining and giving medicines to his friend, the revisionist-accused hit on his head from behind with an iron rod. Deceased fell down then all the three accused wrapped him in a bed sheet and inflicted several blows with iron rod. Deceased fell down then all the three accused wrapped him in a bed sheet and inflicted several blows with iron rod. Thereafter they committed loot in the house of the deceased and also took in possession the keys of the house. After committing loot they put the dead body of the deceased in the Alto Car of the deceased, parked in the porch of the house and driving the vehicle they came at Kishaur Bridge and threw away the dead body there. 5. The revisionist (child in conflict with law) was declared a juvenile on the basis of high school certificate, in which his date of birth is recorded as 11.08.2002 and on the date of incident his age was 16 years, 4 months and 20 days. The Juvenile Justice Board conducted the preliminary assessment with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit the offence, ability to understand the consequence of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence and vide order dated 16.09.2019, transferred his case for trial to the children court (POCSO court). The trial of the revisionist-accused is pending before that court. Bail application of the revisionist (Juvenile) moved before the Juvenile Justice Board was rejected on 02.09.2019 and a criminal appeal was preferred against the aforesaid order, has been dismissed on 04.11.2019 by the Special Judge (POSCO Act)/Additional Session Judge, Court No.10, Varanasi. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that Juvenile Justice Board called a report from D.P.O. and has observed that as per conclusion of the inquiry the child is involved with other persons and have friendship with the persons older than his age. The learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the D.P.O. report does not disclose that after release the revisionist may come with association of known or unknown criminals, but the Juvenile Justice Board has rejected the bail application of the revisionist on the ground of serious nature of offence as well as on the ground that his release is likely to bring him into association with a gang or bad persons. Learned counsel for the revisionist also contended that the revisionist filed an appeal against the aforesaid order on the ground that revisionist has no criminal history and detained since 14.01.2019. There is no direct evidence and case is based on circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel for the revisionist also contended that the revisionist filed an appeal against the aforesaid order on the ground that revisionist has no criminal history and detained since 14.01.2019. There is no direct evidence and case is based on circumstantial evidence. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of revisionist and there is no possibility of his association with know or unknown criminals if released on bail, but the appellate court has not considered the aforesaid grounds and illegally and arbitrarily rejected the appeal on the ground of nature of the offence. Learned counsel for the revisionist further contended that as per section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 a juvenile shall be released on bail, except the following three grounds:- “(i) If there appear reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any unknown or known criminals. or (ii) that it will expose him to moral, physical or physiological danger. or (iii) that his release would defeat the ends of justice.” He also contended that the grounds taken by both the courts below do not come under the purview of the above three exceptions mentioned in section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Both the courts below rejected the bail of the revisionist on the ground of seriousness of the offence, which is not sustainable in the eye of law, as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the High Court. He placed reliance on the following citations on this points:- “(i) Dr. Subramaniam Swami Vs. Raju, 2014 (86) ACC 637. (ii) Pradeed Kumar Vishwakarma Vs. State, (2019) 109 ACC 73, Criminal Appeal No.3526 of 2018. (iii) Ankur (minor) Vs. State, Criminal Revision No.2909 of 2017, Allahabad High Court, decided on 24.04.2018. (iv) Rohit (minor) Vs. State, 2019 (107) ACC 247, Criminal Revision No.310 of 2018. (v) Criminal Revision No.737 of 2020 (Lalit @ Chena Vs. State of U.P.), Allahabad High Court, decided on 03.12.2020. (vi) Criminal Revision No.1800 of 2020 (Mohd. Najmuddin (Minor) Vs. State of U.P.), Allahabad High Court, decided on 04.05.2021. (vii) Criminal Revision No.1266 of 2020 (Kanchan Sonkar (minor) Vs. State of U.P.), Allahabad High Court, deided on 01.12.2020. (viii) Ezij @ Bikanu Vs. State of U.P.), Allahabad High Court, decided on 03.12.2020. (vi) Criminal Revision No.1800 of 2020 (Mohd. Najmuddin (Minor) Vs. State of U.P.), Allahabad High Court, decided on 04.05.2021. (vii) Criminal Revision No.1266 of 2020 (Kanchan Sonkar (minor) Vs. State of U.P.), Allahabad High Court, deided on 01.12.2020. (viii) Ezij @ Bikanu Vs. State of U.P., 2006 (Supplementary) ACC 731, Allahabad High Court.” Learned counsel for the revisionist further contended that maximum period for which revisionist-accused can be sentenced is three years. He is detained since 14.01.2019 and there is no hope of early disposal of trial. On the aforesaid grounds the learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that he may be released on bail. 7. Learned counsel also placed reliance on citation of Satya Deo @ Bhura Vs. State of U.P. (2020) 10 SCC page 555. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court while upholding conviction set-aside the sentence of life imprisonment and remanded the matter to the Board for passing appropriate order/direction under section 15 of the Act. 8. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 (complainant) vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the offence is of a heinous nature, as defined in section 2 (33). The learned counsel placing reliance on a judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.4418 of 2019 (Radhika (juvenile) Vs. State of UP), decided 05.08.2019, submitted that while deciding bail of juvenile between the age group of 16-18 years, who is an accused of a heinous offence his mental, physical capacity, ability to understand the gravity of the offence are also to be considered. Learned counsel also contended that as the offence is of heinous nature maximum three years sentence is also not applicable. It is further contended that revisionist-accused has committed the brutal murder with intention of loot and also committed the loot. He is close relation of deceased and has committed betrayal of trust of relation. The murder has been committed in gruesome manner breaking the skull and face of the deceased in pieces and body thrown away by taking it from the car of the deceased to conceal the identity. Learned counsel also contended that the D.P.O. report is also adverse to the revisionist-accused. It is mentioned in it that his company is not good and his friendship is with the persons to older than his age. Learned counsel also contended that the D.P.O. report is also adverse to the revisionist-accused. It is mentioned in it that his company is not good and his friendship is with the persons to older than his age. On the basis of D.P.O. report the learned court below had held that if he is released on bail then he may come in association with any gang or bad persons. It is also contended that trial is going on and cross examination of the witness is proceeding. There is no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the courts below, hence the revision is liable to be dismissed. The revisionist is not entitled for bail. 9. The allegations against the revisionist-accused is that he committed the murder of his maternal grand father (Chachera Nana) committed loot in his house, mutilated his body and threw away it to conceal the identity. Looted articles is alleged to have been recovered from his possession also and at his instance the weapon used in the offence (iron rod) has also been recovered. The age of the revisionist-accused on the date of incident was 16 years, 4 months and 20 days. So he is in age group of 16-18 years. His trial has been referred to the POCSO Court by the Juvenile Justice Board, under the provision of section 18(3) of the Act, 2015. 10. According to D.P.O. report the company of the child is not good. He was studying in Class-12 at Vikash Inter College, Permanandpur, Varanasi. Earlier he was a private student. Most of his friends are educated but older than his age. The behavior of the neighbours with the child was not cooperative. He has bad habit of drugging. In the column of other remarks it is specifically mentioned that his company is not good. 11. As the revisionist is an accused of heinous offence and in between the age group of 16-18 years, the provisions of section 18(1) and 18(2) are not applicable. The board after preliminary assessment has transferred the case for trial to the children court (POCSO court) under the provisions of section 18(3) of the Act. The limit of maximum three years stay at special home will also not be applicable. Section 21 will apply, which provides as follows:- “21. The board after preliminary assessment has transferred the case for trial to the children court (POCSO court) under the provisions of section 18(3) of the Act. The limit of maximum three years stay at special home will also not be applicable. Section 21 will apply, which provides as follows:- “21. No child in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or for life imprisonment without the possibility of release, for any such offene, either under the provisions of this Act or under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force.” 12. This Court in Criminal Appeal No.4418 of 2019 (Radhika (juvenile)Vs. State of UP), decided 05.08.2019, in para no.32 has made the following observations:- “[32] This in fact is a dichotomy, whereby a juvenile delinquent is being released on bail except those above three conditions provided under Section 12(Proviso) of the Act, that too as a matter of right. On the other hand, they shall be tried as adults and could be awarded any sentence as per the discretion of the court provided under the law, except the life sentence and death sentence. This dichotomous situation could be resolved by taking the recourse of "object" of the legislation and Para 4 of the Statement of object and reasons, clearly mandates that the enactment of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 was ill-equipped to tackle child offenders between the age group of 16-18 years and involved in heinous offences, like, murder, gang rape, solitary-rape, bride burning etc. and to resolve this impasse, the court holds that for the purposes of bail to the adolescent offender between the age group of 16-18 years, involved in the heinous offence like murder, solitary-rape, gang-rape, bride burning, drug trafficking, the beneficial legislation for the purposes of bail under Section 12 of the Act shall not apply in its present shape and format. It would be no more as a matter of right to such delinquent minor, who is involved in heinous offences. It is not possible to furnish exhaustive list of such offences but it definitely connotes the same meaning as defined in Section 2(33) of the Act. It would be no more as a matter of right to such delinquent minor, who is involved in heinous offences. It is not possible to furnish exhaustive list of such offences but it definitely connotes the same meaning as defined in Section 2(33) of the Act. While deciding the bail of such delinquent offender ranging between the age group of 16-18 years would be discretionary upon the court, which shall in addition to those grounds provided under Section 12(Proviso) of the Act, also take into account with regard to his mental, physical capacity, ability to understand the gravity of that heinous offence, including their respective participation in the crime and the circumstances wherein he/they has/have allegedly committed that particular grave and serious offence. All these factors too are determinative factors while adjudicating the bail applications of juvenile offenders in the age group of 16-18 years, else it would be a mockery of legislation and the object of the present legislation would reduce to naught.” The aforesaid view is a reasoned one and I am also in agreement with it. While deciding the bail application of a delinquent offender between the age group of 16-18 years in addition to the ground provided under section 12 (proviso of the act), his mental, physical capacity, ability to understand the gravity of that heinous offence, including his participation in the crime and the circumstances wherein he has committed the heinous offence could also be taken into consideration. 13. In this case the D.P.O. report is also not favorable to the revisionist (child in conflict with law). It is clearly stated in it that his company is not good and his friendship is with persons older than his age. He has also bad habit of drugging. Hence the finding of the Juvenile Justice Board that there appears reasonable ground to believe that his release is liable to bring him into association with any known criminal, cannot be said to be un-reasoned and perverse. Considering his participation in the crime and the circumstances in which he has committed the heinous offence and also taking into account his mental, physical capacity and also ability to understand the gravity of the offence, his release on bail will defeat the ends of justice. His bail application has rightly been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board and appeal by the appellate court. His bail application has rightly been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board and appeal by the appellate court. Both the courts below have not committed any legal error in rejecting the bail application. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the learned courts below. The revisionist (child in conflict with law) is not entitled for bail. Revision is liable to be dismissed. For speedy trial, direction may be issued. 14. Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed. 15. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it, preferably within one year from the date of production of this order placed before it, without granting any unnecessary adjournments.