Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist; Sri Ram Manohar Kashyap, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
(2.) The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 8.12.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ghazipur, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Ghazipur has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2016 [Solu alias Shubham Singh (juvenile) through his father and natural guardian Mithlesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P.] and confirmed the order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur in Case Crime No.531 of 2016, under Sections 307 I.P.C. and Section 25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Mardah, District Ghazipur, whereby the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur has rejected the bail application of Solu alias Shubham Singh (juvenile) son of Mithlesh Kumar Singh.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ghazipur and also the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ghazipur dated 8.12.2016 are wrong, illegal and can not be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also argued that the revisionist is in judicial custody w.e.f. 10.10.2016. It has been further argued that in the F.I.R., three persons were named as accused persons whereas there are only two injuries on the body of the injured person. It has also been argued that place of occurrence is different as mentioned in the F.I.R.;