ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

The juvenile X S/o K has been confined in connection with FIR No.71/2019 registered at Police Station Swaroopganj, Sirohi and is facing charges under Sections 3 /4 of POCSO Act. He is lodged at the Child Observation Home, Sirohi. The bail application preferred under Section 12 of the JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT , 2015 by the juvenile through amicus curiae was dismissed by the learned Principle Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sirohi vide order dated 25.02.2022. An appeal was preferred under Section 101 of the JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT , 2015 against the said order before the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 & Child Right Protection Commission Act, 2005) Sirohi which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.04.2023 and the order passed by the learned Board was upheld. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, the present revision petition has been filed under Section 102 of the JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT read with Section 3 97 /401 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that PW-4 Dr. Rashi and PW-9 Dr. Ramlal though collected the samples of sputum, blood, Vaginal swab as well as of semen but in the FSL report exhibit P-12 and 13 neither the semen nor the blood was detected and paternity test was not conducted to show that the petitioner juvenile was the biological father of the fetus or the delivered baby was his. It is also submitted that petitioner is a juvenile.

3. Learned counsel for the juvenile-petitioner submits that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the learned court below has grossly erred in rejecting the bail application of the juvenile-petitioner. They have failed to consider the correct factual and legal aspects of the case. The juvenile has been detained at the Child Observation Home, Sirohi since long time and looking at the pace at which the trial is proceeding, it will likely take long time to conclude. The Juvenile Justice Board has treated the accused as juvenile. He further submits that there is no possibility of the juvenile-petitioner absconding. There is nothing on record that may debar him from getting released on bail, therefore, it is humbly prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the juvenile be released on bail.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the juvenile-petitioner and submits that since the matter pertains to commission of a grave offence, the petitioner is not deserving of being released on bail.

5. From the perusal of Section 12 (1) of the Act of 2015, it is established legal position that a delinquent juvenile ordinarily has to be released on bail irrespective of nature of offence alleged to have been committed by him unless it is shown by evidence that if he is released on bail, there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the delinquent juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The nature of offence and the merits of the case do not have any relevance. It is for the prosecution to bring on record such material while opposing the bail and make out any of the grounds provided in the section, which may persuade the court not to release the juvenile on bail. But in this case, there is nothing on record to show that the release of the juvenile-petitioner 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.

6. Upon consideration of the overall facts and circumstances, and considering the fact of juvenescence of the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner