Juveniles are entitled to bail under the Juvenile Justice Act unless substantial evidence suggests that release poses risks of criminal association or danger, regardless of the offence's nature.

JUDGMENT :

Farjand Ali, J.

The juvenile petitioners herein have been confined in connection with FIR No. 185/2023 registered at Police Station Shergarh for the offences under Sections 3 63 , 387, 376-D of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. They are lodged at the Child Observation Home, Jodhpur. The bail application preferred under Section 12 of the JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT , 2015 by the juvenile through amicus curiae were dismissed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Jodhpur vide order dated 8.8.2023 and the appeals preferred under Section 101 of the JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT , 2015 against the said order before the learned learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases and the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 Cases, Bikaner also came to be dismissed vide orders dated 18.8.2023 and 10.8.2023 and the order passed by the learned Board was upheld. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the instant revision petitions have 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 juvenile-petitioners submit that the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the learned Court below has grossly erred in rejecting the bail applications of the juvenile-petitioners. They have failed to consider the correct factual and legal aspects of the case. The juvenile have been detained at the Child Observation Home since quite some 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-petitioners absconding. There is nothing on record that may debar them from getting released on bail, therefore, it is humbly prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the juvenile be released on bail.

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

4. Heard.

5. It is revealing from the record that when the girl was recovered by the police under the proceedings of MPR on 17.5.2023, she made a categoric statement that she left the company of her parents on her own accord and joined the association of the accused Ramesh clandestinely and where-after, she roamed with him at different places. She candidly admitted that nothing wrong had happened against her. It is the case of the prosecution that after lapse of some time, she changed her version and then levelled allegation of sexual abuse. Be that as it may, the petitioner is a juvenile. There are two types of statements of the victim. However, this Court would refrain from making any comment on her veracity.

6. 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