He has also brought attention to this Court to the fact that this accused-revisionist was declared to be a juvenile vide order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur dated 24.03.2015 finding him to be 17 years 9 months and 20 days old on the date of occurrence, which order has become final. It is argued that the Social Investigation Report also contains the fact that no one in the family of the revisionist-accused has any criminal history and despite that the apprehension expressed by the D.P.O. that in case he was released on bail, there could be possibility of defeat of ends of justice or of his being exposed to moral, physical or psychological threat, was without any substance. It is further argued that the learned appellate court did not take into consideration the legal requirement as per the provision under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act, 2000 which provides that the bail of the juvenile can be dismissed only if the court satisfies itself that release of the accused on bail would bring him in association with known criminal or that it would expose him into moral, physical or psychological danger or the ends of justice would be defeated. Without any material collected by the prosecution to that effect, the bail has been arbitrarily rejected merely on the ground that it found the offence of grave nature which is alleged to have been committed by the accused revisionist.
