Jitendra Kumar, J. – The present Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 16.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (Children Court), Gaya in Criminal Appeal (Juvenile) No. 32 of 2019 (C.I.S) whereby learned Appellate Court has refused to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

2. The factual background of the case is that on the fardbeyan of one Gopal Sao dated 14.06.2018, Konch P.S. Case No. 195/2018 was registered on 14.06.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 376D, 397, 376(3) and 376(DA) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against ten unknown persons.

3. After investigation, charge-sheet bearing no. 192 of 2018 dated 06.09.2018 was filed under Section 395, 376D, 397, 376(3) and 376(DA) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against twelve accused persons including the appellant in the POCSO Court. On an application of the appellant herein, the POCSO Court sent the record of the Appellant vide order dated 15.12.2018 to the J.J. Board, Gaya for declaring him juvenile along with the xerox copy of the School Leaving Certificate filed by the Appellant.

4. Subsequently, learned J.J. Board, Gaya declared the appellant as juvenile on the basis of admission register wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 17.08.2001, whereas the date of the alleged occurrence is 13.06.2018 and hence, finding the appellant 16 years 9 months and 26 days old, the appellant was declared juvenile and subsequently, vide order dated 28.01.2020, cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 395, 376D, 397, 376(3) and 376(DA) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was taken against the appellant and the matter was fixed for preliminary assessment of the appellant in view of his age and the nature of the alleged offence. Vide order dated 22.02.2020, preliminary assessment of the appellant was made, as per which the appellant was found to be capable to committ the alleged offence and able to understand the consequences and nature of the offence allegedly committed by him. Hence, the matter was transferred to the Children Court, Gaya for his trial as adult. Subsequently charge was framed and trial is going on, which is at the stage of prosecution evidence.

5. In regard to the bail application, it transpires that by the order dated 28.03.2019, learned J.J. Board has rejected the application of the appellant for releasing him on bail holding as follows: –

“A perusal of the record shows that this case has been instituted u/s 395, 376 (d) 376 (3), 376 (DA), 397 IPC & 6 POSCO Act. 2012 against unknown person & after completion of enquiry the IO has found the indulgence of 12 accused including CICL Nitish Kumar submitted Charge-Sheet against CICL u/s 395, 397, 376(d), 376(3), 376(DA), 412, 120(b) IPC & 4/6 POCSO Act. The informant & victim girl in her statement u/s 164 Cr.PC, has supported not only the allegation aforesaid section but also the allegation of group rape against the unknown accused persons. Witness Rambilash Paswan, Sita Devi & Vicky Paswan accept the name of CICL Nitish Kumar & other accused persons in the Case-diary.

A perusal of the SIR shows that there is lack of proper control by the Guardian over the CICL due to which the CICL is in the company of wrong people & is in habit of taking his own decision without proper guidance. It has also been found that the CICL actively extended support to his friend. If the CICL is released on bail he would be exposed to Physical & Psychological danger due to such hatred.

After considering the material collected after inquiry, the SIR this Board is of the opinion that the if CICL Nitish Kumar be released on bail there are chances of exposing him to physical mental & Psychological danger hence his bail petition is hereby Rejected”

6. Against the rejection order, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal (Juvenile) No. 32 of 2019 in the Court of Special Judge (Children Court), Gaya, but even the Ch