Om Prakash -VII, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Ghan Shyam Das learned counsel for the revisionist (minor) as well as Sri Narendra Kumar Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the respondent -State. This revision petition under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2000) and Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 21.8.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Mainpuri, (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2014, whereby the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the: revisionist and upheld the judgment and order dated 4.4.2014 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mainpuri in Bail Application No. Nil of 2014 filed in the Inquiry No. 45 of 2014, State v. Ashish, arising out of Case Crime No. 469 of 2012. under Sections 302 and 506, I.P.C. Police Station Bhongaon, District Mainpuri.
(2.) THE allegation of offence against the revisionist is under Sections 302 and 506, I.P.C. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Act of 2000 before Juvenile Justice Board, Mainpuri was rejected vide order dated 4.4.2014. Being aggrieved by the said order, in Ashish Kumar v. State of U.P., Appeal No. 20 of 2014, under Section 52 of the Act of 2000 was filed by the revisionist before the appellate court and the same has been dismissed by learned appellate court vide impugned order dated 21.8.2014. Dissatisfied by the orders dated 4.4.2014 and 21.8.2014 passed by the courts below, the revisionist has preferred present revision under Section 53 of the Act of 2000 read with Section 397/401. Cr.P.C. before this Court. Learned counsel for the revisionist vehemently submitted that impugned orders passed by the courts below are illegal, unsustainable in the eyes of law and totally against the provisions of law. Learned courts below have not appreciated the fact that the revisionist is a juvenile and entitled to get benefit of provisions of the Act of 2000. Section 12 of the Act of 2000 clearly provides that if the revisionist is juvenile, then he should be released on bail, but learned courts below fully ignored the provisions of the Act of 2000. The revisionist has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no evidence on record to show the involvement of the revisionist in the present case. The petitioner is in custody since 26.10.2012 and no further detention of the petitioner is required for any purpose. There is no evidence to show that if the juvenile -revisionist is released on bail, then his 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 ends of justice. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline bail to a juvenile. Learned courts below in quite cursory manner have declined bail to the appellant/revisionist. He further contended that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are not based upon definite facts and they are based on surmises and conjectures.
(3.) A counter -affidavit has been filed by opposite party No. 2 but none is present on his behalf.;