JUDGMENT : CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ali Hasan assisted by Mr. Istiyaq Ali learned counsel for the revisionist and Smt. Vijeta Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2/Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a first information report has been lodged on 18.08.2021 against Chhote @ Mohd. Sahid Khan, Raju@ Saif, Saleem, Shoeb, Faim, Nasim, Wasim, Munna and Hasim which was registered as Case Crime No. 253 of 2021 under Sections 8/21/29/30/22C/25/27A NDPS Act at Police Station-Fatehganj Purvi District-Bareilly with the allegation that during raid by police 4 packets of 20 kg 9(each packets contain 5 kg) has been recovered from the possession of accused Chhote@ Mohd. Sahid Khan and Raju@ Saif who were arrested from spot whereas the others accused Nassem@ Munna, Saleem, Shoaib, Faim, Naim, Waseem, Hasim have runaway from the spot, whose name came into light in the statement of arrested accused, namely, Chhotey@ Mohd. Sahid Khan and Raju@ Saif recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The date of birth of revisionist on the date of alleged incident was 12.06.2007 i.e. 14 years 2 month 6 days, so an application was filed on behalf of revisionist before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly, who vide order dated 03.01.2023 declared the revisionist as juvenile. District Probation Officer, Bareilly sent his report dated 24.01.2023 before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board Bareilly about the antecedents and family background of the revisionist/juvenile. On behalf of revisionist, a bail application was filed. Opposite party No. 2 filed his counter affidavit/objection to the bail application of the revisionist. The learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly after hearing the learned counsel for the parties rejected the bail application filed on behalf of the revisionist vide order dated 31.01.2023. Against the order dated 31.01.2023, a criminal appeal was filed on behalf of revisionist which was numbered as Appeal No. 7 of 2023. The Special Judge, POCSO Act/Addl. Session Judge, Bareilly vide judgment dated 29.03.2023, dismissed the criminal appeal No. 7 of 2023 filed on behalf of revisionist hence this revision on behalf of revisionist before this Court through his aunty (mausi) under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 3. The Special Judge, POCSO Act/Addl. Session Judge, Bareilly vide judgment dated 29.03.2023, dismissed the criminal appeal No. 7 of 2023 filed on behalf of revisionist hence this revision on behalf of revisionist before this Court through his aunty (mausi) under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 3. This Court on 26.04.2023 admitted the revision and passed the following orders: “Sri Istiyaq Ali, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Nikhil Pathak, Advocate holding brief of opposite party No. 2 and Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State are present. The present criminal revision has been preferred to set aside the order dated 29.03.2023 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, Bareilly by which the appellate court has affirmed the order dated 30.01.2023, whereby bail application has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned orders have been passed without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and report of D.P.O. Admit. Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party No. 1. Issue notice to opposite party No. 2 through C.J.M. concerned returnable at an early date. Learned A.G.A. as well as opposite party No. 2/Intelligence Officer, may file their counter affidavit within three weeks. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter. Put up on 29.05.2023 as a fresh.” 4. In pursuance of the order dated 26.04.2023 counsel for opposite party No. 2 has filed his counter affidavit and counsel for the revisionist had filed his rejoinder affidavit also annexing the copy of the final judgment dated 09.06.2023, passed by this court by which revision of another juvenile of the same case crime number No. 253 of 2021 has been allowed and released on bail. 5. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist was declared juvenile vide order dated 03.01.2023, as such the case of revisionist was required to be considered under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015, hereinafter referred as JJ Act 2015 but impugned orders have been passed in violation of provisions contained under JJ Act 2015. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist was declared juvenile vide order dated 03.01.2023, as such the case of revisionist was required to be considered under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015, hereinafter referred as JJ Act 2015 but impugned orders have been passed in violation of provisions contained under JJ Act 2015. He further submitted that provision of Section 12 of JJ Act 2015 has not been followed as such the impugned orders are wholly illegal and revisionist is entitled to be released on bail in view of the provision contained under Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2015. He further submitted that there is no evidence to believe that release of the revisionist bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger but impugned orders have been passed in illegal and arbitrary manner. He further submitted that name of revisionist came into light in the statement of arrested accused under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act, which can not be read against the revisionist in view of ratio of law laid down by Apex Court in the Case of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 (4) SCC 1 . He further submitted that revisionist has no criminal history. He next submitted that in view of the report submitted by District Probation Officer, revisionist is entitled to be released on bail. He further submitted that revisionist is suffering from neuro problem & treatment is going on since 2016. He submitted that revisionist is in custody since 06.09.2022. He further submitted that another minor co-accused of the alleged incident has been granted bail by detailed order dated 09.06.2023, passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1343 of 2023 X (Juvenile) Vs. State of U.P. and another as such, revisionist is also entitled to be released on bail. He further submitted that other adult co-accused, namely, Saleem, Fahim, Naim and Hasib, who have been implicated during investigation have been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court and as such revisionist, who is juvenile is also entitled to be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2/NCB submitted that the act and conduct of the revisionist and other co-accused persons comes under the purview of illicit trafficking as such there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2/NCB submitted that the act and conduct of the revisionist and other co-accused persons comes under the purview of illicit trafficking as such there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. He further submitted that material on record clearly shows the collusion and involvement of the revisionist in the illicit trafficking of the recovered 20 kg of heroin. He further placed provisions of Section 54 of the N.D.P.S. Act, in order to demonstrate that presumption of involvement of revisionist will be drawn in the incident in question. He finally submitted that revision filed by revisionist is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that revisionist has been declared juvenile vide order date 03.01.2023 and the bail application as well as appeal filed against the orders rejecting the bail application of revisionist have been dismissed by the court concerned. 9. In order to appreciate the controversy, the perusal of Section 12 of JJ Act, 2015 will be relevant which is 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 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. (2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under subsection (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order. (4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail. Perusal of Section 12 of J.J. Act, 2015 reveals that Juvenile Justice Board ordinarily release the Juvenile on bail with or without surety but in the case of denial of bail to juvenile condition mentioned under Section 12 of J.J. Act should be complied with. 10. Three conditions specified under Section 12(1) of JJ Act, 2015 as quoted above for refusing bail to juvenile are not available in the instant matter as such the bail cannot be refused to revisionist. 11. This Court in the case reported in Shiv Kumar @ Sadhu vs. State of U.P. 2010 (68) ACC 616 has considered the provision for granting bail to juvenile. Paragraph No. 5, 6 and 7 of the judgment rendered in Shiv Kumar @ Sadhu (supra) are relevant for consideration which are as under: “5. A bare reading of Section 12 of the Act provides that there are three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile: (1) if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or (2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or (3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 6. Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail in Section 12 of the Act. 6. Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail in Section 12 of the Act. The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the nature of offences are grave and if the revisionist Shiv Kumar is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating or terrorizing the witnesses. 7. From perusal of the lower court record, it transpires that there was nothing to show any material or any substance for believing that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological change or that his release would defeat the ends of justice as provided by Section 12 of the Act. The learned courts below passed the impugned orders are not in consonance with the provision of Section 12 of the Act. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above discussions, the revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.07.2009 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Faizabad as well as impugned order dated 25.06.2009 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Faizabad are set aside.” 12. This court while allowing the revision of another Juvenile of the same incident has interpreted the word “shall” as mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 12 of JJ Act, 2015 as well as the term known Criminal as such there is no necessity to interpret the same. 13. Section 13(1)(ii) of JJ Act, 2015 provides for submission of social investigation report by Probation Officer. In the instant matter the District Probation Officer has submitted the social investigation report dated 24.01.2023, before board which has been annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application along with revision. The report demonstrate that revisionist was aged about 14 years 2 months 6 days at the time of incident and educated upto class IX as well as his living standard is average. No criminal antecedent of the revisionist has been found in the report dated 24.01.2023. 14. Perusal of impugned orders fully demonstrate that mandatory provisions of Section 12 of JJ Act, 2015 has not been considered at all as such impugned orders are illegal. 15. No criminal antecedent of the revisionist has been found in the report dated 24.01.2023. 14. Perusal of impugned orders fully demonstrate that mandatory provisions of Section 12 of JJ Act, 2015 has not been considered at all as such impugned orders are illegal. 15. The grant of bail to another Juvenile by this Court in same Case Crime No. 253 of 2021 as well as grant of bail to adult co-accused who have been implicated during investigation entitles the juvenile-revisionist for bail. 16. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the impugned orders 31.01.2023, rejecting the bail application of the revisionist as well as the order dated 29.03.2023, dismissing the appeal filed by revisionist cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. 17. The criminal revision is allowed. 18. Let the revisionist-X (Juvenile) be released on bail in Case Crime No. 253 of 2021, under Section 8/21/29/30/22C/25/27 A of the NDPS Act, Police Station-Fatehganj Purivi, District-Bareilly, after furnishing a personal bond of his aunty (mausi) with two sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly, subject to the following conditions: (i) Natural guardian/aunty (mausi) will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the revisionist will not be permitted to go into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical, or psychological danger and further that the aunty (mausi) will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence. (ii) Natural guardian/aunty (mausi) will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juvenile will pursue his study at the appropriate level which would be encouraged to do besides other constructive activities and not be allowed to waste his time in unproductive and excessive recreational pursuits. (iii) Juvenile and natural guardian/aunty (mausi) will report to the Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month commencing with the first Monday of August, 2023, and if during any calendar month the first Monday falls on a holiday, then on the following working day. (iv) The Probation Officer will keep a strict vigil on the activities of the juvenile and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Bareilly, on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine.