IMPORTANT POINT
The bail application of a juvenile should be allowed unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that the release would expose the juvenile to danger or defeat the ends of justice, as per Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State are present.

2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners against the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lohardaga cum Special Judge, (Children Court), Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2022, whereby the appeal was dismissed and affirmed the order dated 05.03.2022 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Lohardaga in connection with Bhandra P.S. Case No.05 of 2022 registered under Section 376DA/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act, wherein the bail application of both the juveniles was rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both the petitioners were 14 years old on the date of occurrence, their bail application was rejected by the learned J.J. Board only taking into consideration the gravity of offence without taking into consideration the Social Investigation Report while there is nothing adverse against both the petitioner in Social Investigation Report. The impugned order passed by the learned J.J. Board, which was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court are based on surmises and conjectures. It is also submitted that the similarly situated co-accused, namely, Amit Oraon has been granted bail by this Bench in Cr. Revision No.779 of 2023 vide order dated 08.11.2023

4. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and contended that though the name of the petitioners do not figure in the FIR; yet during investigation the victim also identified the petitioners being involved in commission of gang rape. The order passed by the learned J.J. Board, which was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court bear no infirmity.

5. The prosecution case is that the informant-victim gave written statement with the police station concerned that on 14.01.2022 she had gone in a marriage ceremony to Chergi, P.S. Bharno, District Gumla and from there on 16.01.2022, she came to the house of her elder mother at Village Bhauro and stayed in the night. On 17.01.2022 in the morning she left Bhauro and reached to Bhandra. At 08:00 o’clock in the evening along with her friend Gudda Mahto and Sanjay Oraon, where her friend Gudda Mahto and Sanjay Oraon, both took her near Chirgu School and in the bush both raped her. After some time, five to six persons also attracted there and all had raped her. She had also pelted a stone, which hit one of the accused Raju Oraon. On raising alarm, all the accused persons fled away. From this written information, Case Crime No.05 of 2022 was registered under Section 376DA/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act against the accused Gudda Mahto, Sanjay Oraon, Raju Oraon and five to six unknown persons.

6. The restatement of victim was also recorded during investigation, in which, she reiterated the allegations made in the FIR. The statement of Manisha was also recorded, in which, she stated that the accused Gudda Mahto or the friend of victim along with his friend Sanjay Oraon, Ravi Oraon, Mahavir Lohra came by the motorcycle at 06:30 and took the victim with them. Later on, the victim told her in regard to the occurrence. Same kind of statement was given by the witness Balmani Oraon and Laliteshwar Oraon.

7. In paragraph No.127 of the case diary, the victim identified both the petitioners along with other co-accused persons.

8. The victim was medically examined in view of para 151 of the case diary, but the same is not legible on record.

9. From the very perusal of the FIR and the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is found that along with named accused, other five boys were also raped her and during investigation she identified them. This prosecution story is not corroborated with the statement of victim under Section 164 of the Code o