This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.12.2019 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, Allahabad dismissing Criminal Appeal No.93 of 2019 (Ramesh Pal vs State of UP) filed under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ''the Act') and affirming the order 16.7.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Case No.42 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.0825 of 2018 under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC, Section 3 /4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police station Jhunsi District Prayagraj.Heard Sri Kunjesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.The prosecution case, as per the version of the FIR, is that on 10.11.2018 when the daughter of the informant namely Km.Arti aged about 14 years went to the shop, she was enticed away by the revisionist.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case.It is further submitted that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim has clearly stated that the revisionist established relations with her with her consent and she was in love with the revisionist and wanted to marry with him.However, subsequently under the influence of her parents she has changed her version in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC making allegation of rape against the revisionist.From the perusal of the statement of the victim under Section 161 CrPC it appears that the victim is a consenting party.As per medical report, age of the victim has been ascertained between 16 to 18 years and and she has refused to get herself medically examined.Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is juvenile and there is no apprehension of reasoned ground for believing that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring him in association with any known criminals or expose him to mental, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.He further submits that except this the revisionist has no previous criminal history.The father of the revisionist is giving his undertaking that after release of the revisionist on bail, he will keep him under his custody and look after him properly.Further, the revisionist undertakes that he will not tamper the evidence and he will always cooperate the trial proceedings.There was no report regarding any previous antecedents of family or background of the revisionist.There is no chance of revisionist's re-indulgence to bring him into association with known criminals.Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that it is not in dispute that the revisionist is a juvenile as he already been declared juvenile by Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj.The revisionist was a juvenile aged 14 years, 2 months and 18 days on the date of occurrence.He was, thus, clearly below 15 years of age.Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that thereafter the revisionist applied for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj upon which a report from the District Probation Officer was called for.Hence the present criminal revision has been filed before this Hon'ble Court mainly on the following amongst other grounds:(i) That the bail application of the revisionist was rejected by the court below in a very cursory and arbitrary manner.(iv) That the impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned courts below are apparently illegal, contrary to law and based on erroneous assumption of facts and law.(v) That there was absolutely no material on record to hold that the release of the Juvenile would 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, yet the courts below have illegally, arbitrary and on surmises refused the bail of juvenile.(vi) That the courts have erred in law in not considering the true import of Section 12 of the Act, 2015 and thus, the impugned orders passed by the courts below suffer from manifest error of law apparent on the face of record.(vii) That the courts below have acted quite illegally and with material irregularity in not properly considering the case of juvenile in proper and correct perspective which makes the impugned orders passed by the courts below non est and bad in law.(viii) That bare perusal of the impugned orders demonstrate that the same have been passed on flimsy grounds which have occasioned gross miscarriage of justice.Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the revisionist have also been placed forth before the Court.In the circumstances, we direct that the bail be granted to the appellant on conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad."The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending.Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year.After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order.There is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High Court.In the aforesaid circumstances the applicants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore.The appeal is disposed of accordingly.", this Court is of the view that the present criminal revision may be allowed and the revisionist may be released on bail.In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed.The impugned judgment and order dated 6.12.2019 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.93 of 2019 (Ramesh Pal vs State of UP) and the order 16.7.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Case No.42 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.0825 of 2018 under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC, Section 3 /4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police station Jhunsi District Prayagraj, are hereby set aside and reversed.The bail application of the revisionist stands allowed.Let the revisionist, Ramesh Pal through his natural guardian Ramraj Pal be released on bail in Case Crime No.0825 of 2018 under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC, Section 3 /4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police station Jhunsi District Prayagraj upon his natural guardian furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj subject to the following conditions:(i) That the natural guardian of the revisionist 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 allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the natural guardian will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.(ii) The revisionist and his natural guardian will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Wednesday of every calendar month commencing with the first Wednesday of December 2020 and if during any calendar month the first Wednesday falls on a holiday, then on the next following working day.

Relevant sections: Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code