The Juvenile Justice Act mandates bail for juveniles unless specific exceptional circumstances exist, emphasizing the welfare of the juvenile.

JUDGMENT :

Praveer Bhatnagar, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner (juvenile) through his natural guardian (Father) Shri. Nathuram, as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

2. The allegations against the petitioner are for offences under Section 376 of IPC, Section 3-4 of POCSO Act and Sections 67, 67B and 66E of IT Act. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 before learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile (Children Court) in Criminal Second Appeal No. 11/2023 (CNR No. 11/2023) and the same has been dismissed by learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 9.11.2023.

3. Being aggrieved of the orders dated 2.11.2023 and 9.11.2023 passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before the Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the juvenile has falsely been implicated in the case. He further submits that the petitioner is juvenile and under detention from 10.6.2023. He also submits that the FIR is itself delayed by two years and there is no medical evidence corroborating the version of the prosecutrix. The charge-sheet has already been produced against the juvenile. He further submits that there is nothing adverse in the Social Investigation Report and no previous criminal antecedents of the petitioner-juvenile. He also submits that the Board has already proceeded the trial and the trial of the case may take considerable time. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline bail to a juvenile.

5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned Counsel for the complainant defend the impugned order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in declining the bail to the petitioner as also the Judgement passed by the Appellate Court upholding the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. Learned Counsel for the complainant submits that in the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., prosecutrix has specifically stated that juvenile-petitioner raped her and also viral nude photographs. Therefore, looking to the gravity of the offence the criminal revision petition filed by the juvenile-petitioner may be dismissed.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the provisions of the Act of 2015.

7. The language of Section 12 of the Act of 2015 conveys the intention of the Legislature to grant bail to the juvenile, irrespective of nature or gravity of the offence, alleged to have been committed by him and bail can be denied only in the case where 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 clanger, or that his release would defeat ends of justice.

8. In this context, this Court also scanned through the record and perused the orders passed by the Courts below.

9. Having carefully examined provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act vis-a-vis the orders passed by the Courts below, this Court does not find that any of the exceptional circumstances, to decline bail to a juvenile, ad indicated in Section 12 of the Act of 2015, is made out.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 9.11.2023 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 and Commission for Child Rights Protection Act, 2005, Jhunjhunu (Children Court) and the order of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jhunjhunu dated 2.11.2023, declining bail to the petitioner are hereby set aside.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the juvenile accused-petitioner Juvenile S Son of Shri. Nathuram shall be released on bail in FIR No. 103/2023, Police Station Bagar District Jhunjhunu upon furnishing a personal bond by his natural guardian (Father) Shri. Nathuram in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfac