JUDGMENT :

Mohan Lal, J.

Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C r/w Section 102 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act), 2015 has been preferred to challenge the impugned orders dated 13.12.2021 rendered by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri in file No. 275/appeal along with order dated 20.11.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Rajouri in file No. 67/miscellaneous in case titled Irfan Ahmed vs UT of J&K through SHO Police Station Thanamandi, District Rajouri, whereby bail to the petitioner/juvenile was declined and the same was affirmed by the court of Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri. Prayer has been made for setting aside the aforesaid impugned orders and release of petitioner/juvenile on bail. It is averred, that the petitioner is a citizen of India and permanent resident of Union Territory of J&K, seeks protection of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Constitution of India including right to liberty and freedom; the petitioner is a juvenile of 14 years and the student of 10th class having date of birth 01.01.2007, has been implicated in false FIR No. 196/2021 on 18.09.2021 for commission of offence under Section 376 IPC and 6 POCSO Act for the allegations that he committed alleged commission of offence of rape upon victim/minor aged 11 years; that he got arrested on 22.10.2021 and for the last almost four (4) months, he is lodged in Juvenile Observation Home R. S. Pura, Jammu; he is just 14 years of age has been sent to Juvenile Observation Home, R.S. Pura, will be exposed to the company of many hardcore juvenile criminals which will be dangerous for his future life and same will defeat the ends of justice; he has no efficacious/alternate remedy except to knock the doors of this Court as he has not filed any other petition before this court or any court of the Country; the impugned orders clearly show that there is no specific allegation against him leading to filing of FIR and the same allegation have not been considered by the appellate court while passing the order; the orders impugned are bad in the eyes of law and deserve to be set-aside as none of the orders discloses that neither the prosecution nor the Board as discussed the fact as when and on which date the prosecutrix has been raped, the age, fact and date should have been discussed; there is no material on record to prove that there is likelihood of minor applicant to come in association with any criminal or expose him to such moral, physical or psychological danger and his release would defeat the ends of justice; Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 dealing with the provisions of bail of a juvenile clearly shows that seriousness or gravity of the offence is not a consideration and bail has to be granted to the juvenile and refused only in three exceptions, viz, there must be some record to show that accused is a member of criminal gang or any report submitted by social investigation agency showing the conduct of the family not conductive to keep the minor in a proper way, but there is no such material on record to show anything contrary and on this ground the impugned order deserves to be set aside; the petitioner needs to be granted bail.

2. Respondent has opposed bail on the grounds, that on the basis of complaint filed by father of the victim on 18.09.2021 under Section 376 IPC r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act FIR has been registered against accused who has committed rape upon minor prosecutrix/victim; accused is involved in heinous crime needs no sympathy; the victim is minor girl and pregnant for the more than five months; the bail application of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board Rajouri, and the appellate Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri has rightly observed that petitioner does not deserves any concession as there is apprehension that petitioner may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may try to win over the witnesses.

3. Learned counsel for