Shri Kant Tripathi, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record.
(2.) THIS is a revision against the Judgment and order dated 2.7.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mau in Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal No. 29 of 2010 Vijai alias Vijay Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P., whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revisionist's appeal against the order dated 15.5.2010 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mau in the case crime No. 138/2010, under Section 376 IPC, Police Station Maharajganj, District Azamgarh. It is not in dispute that the revisionist has already been declared as a juvenile and the Juvenile Justice Board found his age as 8 years, 6 months and 8 days on the date of occurrence. However, the Sessions Judge, while considering the bail prayer of the revisionist, had summoned the revisionist and found that he was more than ten years on the date he was produced before the court. However, it is not disputed that the revisionist was a juvenile.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that there is no evidence to show that the revisionist, if released on bail, will come into association with known criminals or will be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. There is also no evidence to show that ends of justice would be defeated if the revisionist is released on bail.;