Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1407 of 2021 Revisionist :- Yogesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Suresh Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. The seminal question which is before the Court at this stage of the proceedings is as to whether in a revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 20151, in a matter relating to consideration of bail to a 'child in conflict with law', the complainant/victim is to be afforded an opportunity of being heard. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 24.06.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Mathura in Juvenile Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2021 (Yogesh V. State of U.P. and Ors.) under Section 101 of the JJ Act, arising out of order dated 24.05.2021 passed by Incharge Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board in Case No. 77 of 2020, arising out of Crime No. 568 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 302/34 of the India Penal Code2 at Police Station -Vrindavan, District-Mathura. 3. Heard Shri Saurabh Pandey, appearing along with Shri Suresh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Pankaj Saxena, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State-Opposite party. 1 JJ Act 2 Penal Code 2 4. The facts of the case, as reflected from the averments in the affidavit accompanying the memo of revision, indicate that the proceedings were initiated pursuant to an FIR dated 22.09.2020 registered as Case Crime no. 568 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 302/34 of the Penal Code at Police Station- Vrindavan, District-Mathura. As per the FIR allegations the revisionist along with other co-accused had tied up the victim on to a chaff cutter and had beaten him with sticks till he died, and thereafter, they had fled away from the scene of crime. The postmortem report showed cause of death as shock due to antemortem head injury. The statement of the witnesses were recorded during the course of investigation and thereafter the police filed charge sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 302/34 of the Penal Code. 5. The age of the revisionist was determined by the Juvenile Justice Board3 vide order dated 22.03.2021, as 16 years 6 months and 16 days on the date of the incident. The District Probation Officer submitted its report before the Board on 10.02.2021 and thereafter, the bail application was rejected by the Board by order dated 24.05.2021 after recording that there was lack of family control over the accused and that his involvement in the heinous offence was due to his association with persons of criminal nature and for the reason of lack of moral values and family control there was possibility of his influencing and destroying the prosecution evidence. It was observed that there was a possibility of the accused being exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger and that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Accordingly, the bail application was rejected. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the revisionist preferred an appeal under Section 101 which was also rejected by the Additional 3 the Board