JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioners, through the medium of this revision petition moved in terms of the Section 102 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, seek setting aside the judgment dated 07.09.2021 (for short ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kulgam (hereinafter called ‘appellate court’) in case File No. 10/A titled ‘Abdul Khaliq Sheikh vs. Zubair Ahmad Teli & Anr.’, whereby the order dated 01.06.2021 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kulgam, granting interim bail to the petitioners under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (supra), was set aside.

2. The impugned judgment has been assailed on the following grounds:-

(I) That, the impugned order has been passed in gross ignorance and misinterpretation of law laid down under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 read with its rules as the court by passing the impugned order has re-wrote the statute thereby supplying Causus Omissus as the statute governing the said matter laid in its Section 12 is unambiguous and clear, as such, the order impugned has defeated the intention of the legislature and produced a whole unreasonable result thereby violating the rights of the petitioners.

(II) That, neither clause (e) of Sub Section 3 of Section 8 nor Section 15 nor Section 18 (3) of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, provides and indicates that the law laid down in the said provisions is to be followed for consideration of bail application under Section 12 of the Act in a case of juvenile delinquent irrespective of its age as the law laid down under the said provisions clearly indicates that the preliminary assessment required to be made is only a guiding factor for the purposes of passing relevant orders by the Board under Section 18(3), which in terms is only to enable the Board to pass an order that there is need for trial of a child above the age of 16 years as an adult before the Children court.

(III) That, the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration that not only the Juvenile Justice Board has followed the procedure established under law by granting bail in favour of the juvenile delinquents but has handed them in custody of the responsible persons against an undertaking after proper enquiry and application of mind.

(IV) That, the order impugned is itself bad in law, as the court below has not taken into consideration that petitioner No.1 on the date of alleged offence was below the age of 16 years, accordingly, has ignored and mis-appreciated the fact that as per the law there is no need to conduct the preliminary assessment for grant of bail in his favour, as such, to this extent the order impugned on this ground is not sustainable.

(V) That, the order impugned has been passed without taking into consideration the guiding factor laid under Rules 10(2) and 20(8) of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2016, which clearly establishes that there is no need of any preliminary assessment or to seek any social investigation report from the Probation Officer or Child Welfare Officer or Social Worker concerned, in case of release of juvenile pending enquiry by the Juvenile Justice Board.

(VI) That, Section 12 of the Act, 2015 has to be interpreted independently irrespective of any other provision laid under the Act and the same has been clearly interpreted by the higher courts in their various judgments, as such, on this ground also the order impugned is bad in law.

3. Heard, perused the record and considered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the court bellow has misdirected itself by holding that the social investigation report as required under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, is required before consideration of bail in favour of the juvenile delinquent. He has further argued that without clear provisions contained under the Act (supra), the court below has imported the requirement of having the s