Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma, J.

1. Heard Sri Chanchal Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State as well as Sri Manvendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and perused the record.

2. This criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, has been filed on behalf of the minor 'X' through his natural guardian/father Vinod Pandey S/o Late Basant Pandey R/o Village-Khutahan Namjad Karmaita (Babhnauli), Police Station Shadiyabad, District Ghazipur with the prayer to admit the minor on bail alongwith the prayer to set aside the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi and order dated 06.01.2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Varanasi in Misc Case No. 331/2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 188 of 2021 under Section 302, 396, 412 IPC, Police Station-Phoolpur, District-Varanasi by which the criminal appeal was rejected.

3. As per the version of the FIR lodged by Smt. Bindu Devi wife of deceased Phoolchand Ram, who was holding the post of the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, BranchKarkhiyaon, Phoolpur, Varanasi at the time of his death; after attending his Office, he was returning to his house on 09.06.2021 at about 6 pm; he had last conversation with his wife at about 6 pm, however, some unknown persons kidnapped and murdered him. On the basis of the FIR Case Crime No. 0188/2021 under Sections 364 and 302 IPC was registered and investigated upon. During the investigation, after collection of some evidence and recording of statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses, the present revisionist, minor son of Vinod was arrested and a total of Rs. 12,50,500/- out of the looted amount of Rs. 47 lakhs, bearing the seal of Punjab National Bank and some other incriminating articles like the ICard of Phoolchand Ram, the deceased and firearms were recovered. Three of the other arrested co-accused persons namely, Alok Rai, Arun Mishra and Rahul Tiwari, in their confessional statements before the Police, also named the revisionist, a juvenile.

4. During the proceedings before the Juvenile Justice Board, the revisionist was found to be of the age of 17 years, 8 months and 14 days on the date of the incident and was declared juvenile vide order dated 17.09.2021. A bail application through guardian was moved before the Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi, but the same was rejected. Thereafter, a criminal appeal no. 123/2021 was preferred by the real father and guardian of the juvenile and the same was also dismissed.

5. Aggrieved by the above orders, this criminal revision has been preferred to set aside the same and to admit the juvenile to bail.

6. First and foremost contention is that gravity of the offence is not relevant consideration for refusing bail to the juvenile as has been held by a coordinate Bench of that Court in Criminal Revision No. 2732 of 2010 (Amit Kumar vs. State of U.P.) decided on 14.09.2010, Criminal Revision No. 1266 of 2020 (Kanchan Sonkar vs. State of U.P.) decided on 01.12.2020, Criminal Revision No. 1852 of 2015 (Amit vs. State of U.P.) decided on 16.03.2016 and held by the Apex Court in Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006 Cri.L.J. 1373.

7. In Criminal Revision No. 1852 of 2015 (Amit vs. State of U.P.) decided on 16.03.2016, the Court referred to the earlier judgement in Vijendra Kumar Mali vs. State of U.P., 2003 (1) J.I.C. 103, wherein it was observed that in a number of judgements, it has been categorically held that bail to the juvenile can only be refused if one of the grounds as provided in proviso to Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 exist. So far as the ground of gravity is concerned, it is not covered under the relevant provisions. If the bail application of the juvenile was to be considered under the provisions of Cr.P.C., there would have been absolutely no necessity for the enactment of the aforesaid Act. The Section 12 of thecontains a non-obstante clause, which indicates that the general provisions of Cr.P.C. shall not apply. Therefore, the gravity or seriousness of the offence should not be taken as an obstacle or hindrance to refuse the bail to delinquent juvenile.

8. It is contended that there existed no material to justify rejection of bail on the grounds envisaged in Section 12 of the. In view of the above provisions, the 'child in conflict with law', who has been in custody for quite some time deserves to be released on bail otherwise, the purpose of provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act shall stand defeated. It is also contended that care of the juvenile in a child care institution cannot be preferred over his care in his biological family.

9. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 have opposed the prayer for bail.

10. In Om Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan and another; (2012) 5 SCC 201, [LQ/SC/2012/368] the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the Juvenile Justice Act was enacted with a laudable object of providing a separate forum or a special court for holding trial of juvenile as it was felt that child become delinquent by force of circumstance and not by choice and hence they need to be treated with care and sensitivity while dealing and trying cases involving criminal offence. It was further observed that in cases when an accused is involved in grave and serious offence which he committed in a well planned manner reflecting his maturity of mind the court ought to be more careful. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly brought in focus the nature of crime, conduct of an accused as reflected in the method employed in the commission of crime as a relevant consideration while considering the matters of juvenile.

11. It may be noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court gave this view in the background of the facts that age of the juvenile as determined by the courts below was not free from doubts. In the circumstances, the Court observed that where accused commits grave and heinous offence and thereafter attempts to take statutory shelter under the guise of being a minor, a casual or cavalier approach while recording his age, is not acceptable. It is also observed that the shelter of the principle of benevolent legislation of the Juvenile Justice Act is meant for minors, who are innocent law breakers. Nevertheless, in my view, the nature of crime the juvenile was found involved in, is again at the center stage.

12. In Mangesh Rajbhar vs. State of U.P. and Another; 2018 (2) ACR 1941, a coordinate Bench of this Court noted down very important observations which I choose to refer avidly:

"13. No doubt, the Juvenile Justice Act is a beneficial legislation intended for reform of the juvenile/child in conflict with the law, but the law also demands that justice should be done not only to the accused, but also to the accuser."

25. It is not that this aspect of the gravity of the offence has been considered irrelevant to the issue of grant or refusal of bail to a minor in the past and before the present Act of 2015 came into force. In a decision of this Court under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 where the interest of the society were placed seemingly not on a level of playing field with the juvenile, this Court in construing the provisions of Section 12 in that Act that were pari materia to Section 12 of thein the matter of grant of bail to a minor held in the case of Monu @ Moni @ Rahul @ Rohit v. State of U.P., 2011 (74) ACC 353 in paragraph Nos. 14 and 15 of the report as under:

"14. Aforesaid section no where ordains that bail to a juvenile is a must in all cases as it can be denied for the reasons"......if there appears 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."

15. In the light of above statutory provision bail prayer of the juvenile revisionist has to be considered on the surrounding facts and circumstances. Merely by declaration of being a juvenile does not entitle a juvenile in conflict with law to be released on bail as a matter of right. The Act has a solemn purpose to achieve betterment of juvenile offenders but it is not a shelter home for those juvenile offenders who have got criminal proclivities and a criminal psychology. It has a reformative approach but does not completely shun retributive theory. Legislature has preserved larger interest of society even in cases of bail to a juvenile. The Act seeks to achieve moral physical and psychological betterment of juvenile offender and therefore if, it is found that the ends of justice will be defeated or that goal desired by the legislature can be achieved by detaining a juvenile offender in a juvenile home, bail can be denied to him. This is perceptible from phraseology of section 12 itself. Legislature in its wisdom has therefore carved out exceptions to the rule of bail to a juvenile."

13. I am in respectful agreement with the above observations. Ordinarily, the merits of the matter may not be important where the Courts are inclined to give benefit of bail as envisaged in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, I am of the firm view that nature of crime including other merits of the matter may assume ample significance when the Court has to form an opinion about the ends of justice. It may be noted that the phrase 'ends of justice', cannot stand in a vacuum. The manner of commission of the crime, the nature thereof cannot be ignored while striking a balance between the demands of justice of either of the sides. Hence, it cannot be said that the nature of the crime, the manner or methodology applied, the extent of involvement and evidence available are of no relevance when judging the entitlement of a juveniles to bail in cases where heinous crimes are committed. The ends of justice is undoubtedly a meaningful phrase with multidimensional implications. The Courts are under obligation to address the concerns of both the sides and strike a delicate balance between the competing and often conflicting the demands of justice. When viewing the matters of bail from this particular angle of deciphering the ends of justice not only the nature of crime, but the manner of commission thereof, methodology applied, the mental state, the extent of involvement, the evidence available shall be the factors to reckon with. The phrase 'ends of justice' may bring in within its interpretation such factors which may otherwise seem not so material or may be seemingly extraneous, irrelevant or unimportant at first glance for the purpose of applicability of last part of the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act.

14. Following facts cannot go in oblivion that a Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, Varanasi was fatally assaulted and murdered when he was carrying about Rs. 47 lakhs from one Branch to another as part of his official duties, the investigating officer recorded the statement of cashier of the Bank, the driver of the vehicle and some other witnesses and it was found that he was shot at and killed and one of the bag containing cash amount, was looted. During investigation, the present revisionist was arrested and cash of Rs. 12,50,500/- bearing seal of Punjab National Bank, Mariahu, I-card belonging to the deceased and a firearm was also recovered.

15. In nutshell, it can be inferred that the juvenile was found to have complicity in this frightful crime where the life of a Branch Manager was taken for looting of public money. The juvenile was found above 16 years i.e., 17 years 8 months and 14 days on the date of the occurrence. It was a borderline case where the accused was reaching the age of adulthood. The manner, in which, the crime was committed and the nature thereof impels me to draw a conclusion that in case the juvenile is released on bail, he shall fall of in the same hands and environs which most probably contributed towards his criminal bent of mind.

16. It clearly appears that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate Court, while dismissing the bail applications, definitely had in mind the fact that in case the juvenile is released to his family, any chance of him turning into a better and healthy person shall be stalled and that he shall certainly fall of in the same kind of things from where, perhaps he is needed to be rescued for his own welfare. It is worth notice that though the 'Principle of Best Interest', described in Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 has been specifically brought in the provisions of the but broadly it is covered in the phrase 'ends of justice' too.

17. In my view, the aim and object of the Juvenile Justice Act cannot be achieved if crimes committed by the juveniles are not viewed from the angle of their own welfare and concerns of the society at large are not addressed. The social investigation report, though, has been prepared on a printed format rather mechanically may not be very useful. Nevertheless, there are some indicators therein which imply that the juvenile needed effective supervision and indulgence of a professional counselor so that from here onwards he grows into an adult with healthy habits. The social investigation report indicates that he left his studies in in-between and is not interested in any academic pursuit. This is enough to give a clue to the Court that his mind needs to be diverted towards positive direction.

18. The learned appellate Court and the Board have given concurrent view and have found him not at all entitled to bail and have given observation that an effective protection and supervision is needed. Such an observation for declining the bail cannot be faulted in the totality of the circumstances of the matter. I am of the view that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the present revisionist.

19. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.