Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of State is taken on record.Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.The instant revision is filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act challenging the order dated 24.01.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Agra in Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal No. 2 of 2020 by which the appeal filed on behalf of the revisionist was dismissed and order dated 21.12.2019 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Agra in case crime no. 206 of 2019 under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120B IPC, P.S. Bah, District Agra, rejecting the bail application of the applicant.It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the incident is of 27.03.2019 and the first information report was lodged on 6.7.2019 i.e. after more than three months, under Section 364 IPC against two named persons namely, Vijay and Smt. Sarvesh.It is further contended that accused was not named in the first information report and his name was surfaced in the statement of co-accused Vijay, in which he implicated the revisionist along with other co-accused namely Sainky, Chhatrapal and Smt. Sarvesh.It is further contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has falsely been implicated in the present case, he has no concern with the murder of the deceased.It is further contended that the age of the applicant is juvenile, aged about 16 years 10 months and 23 days on the date of the incident.The report of the DPRO, which is annexed as supplementary affidavit shows that the revisionist is quite normal child having no criminal antecedent nor his family having any chequered past.I have gone through the order impugned and there is no material on record to fall this case under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2000 which is quoted hereinbelow :-Bail of juvenile.(1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is 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 1[or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution of fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order."I have carefully seen the order impugned.As per Section 12(1) of Juvenile Justice Act, bail to the minor could be refused, they are:-(i) If there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal(ii) Or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger.(iii) Or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.On a careful perusal of the order, their is not even a whisper as to the case of applicant fall within either of the categories mentioned above.It appears that the learned Judge has over obsessed by the sections of IPC in which the applicant is entitled.Consequently the revision stands allowed.

Sections cited: Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code