IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the bail application of a juvenile accused of a heinous offence should be governed by Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the court has the authority to review the legality or propriety of orders passed by the Children's Court.

JUDGMENT :

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

2. This Criminal Revision has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Giridih in M.C.A. No.693 of 2023, Children Case No.02 of 2023, whereby the bail application of the juvenile was rejected.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has raised the objection that this Criminal Revision is not maintainable against the impugned order in view of Section 101 (5) of the J.J. Act, 2015, which is reproduced hereinbelow:

“(5) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Children's Court may file an appeal before the High Court in accordance with the procedure specified in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).”

4. The contention made by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 is not found tenable in view of Section 102 of the J.J. Act, 2015, which provides that either on its own motion or on an application received in this behalf, call for the record of any proceeding in which any Committee or Board or Children's Court, or Court has passed an order, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such order and may pass such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit. Section 102 of the J.J. Act, 2015 reproduced hereinbelow:

“The High Court may, at any time, either on its own motion or on an application received in this behalf, call for the record of any proceeding in which any Committee or Board or Children's Court, or Court has passed an order, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such order and may pass such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit:

Provided that the High Court shall not pass an order under this section prejudicial to any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.”

5. Taking into consideration the provision of Section 101(5) of the J.J. Act, 2015 also the word ‘may’ means that against the order passed under this Act, appeal may be preferred. It is not mandatory that every order is appealable. Simultaneously, in view of Sections 102 of the J.J. Act, 2015 this Criminal Revision is maintainable.

6. The brief facts leading to this Criminal Revision are that the FIR of Case Crime No.224 of 2022 was lodged by the mother of the victim with these allegations that her daughter 17 years old had told her over the mobile phone that on 01.09.2022 while she was going to Girls High School, Bengabad at 08:30 in the morning, in the market of Bengabad, the accused who was standing there having parked of his motorcycle, asked the daughter of the informant to drop her to the school and made her seated on the motorcycle. Thereafter, he took her to the house of his relative, where he established physical relation forcibly with the daughter of informant and he assured her to marry with her and having reached at Bajrangbali Mandir, solemnized marriage. Subsequently, the family members of the accused and the accused himself refused to marry with her, hence, this FIR was lodged against three named accused persons including the petitioner as shown in the FIR.

7. The bail application of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Court below on the ground that the offence was heinous in nature.

8. The learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 also raised a plea that the bail application of the petitioner, which was rejected by the learned Court below cannot be governed by the Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015 reason being that his age being between 16-18 and it has been declared by the Board that his trial should be conducted as an adult.

9. This contention has been opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that even if the trial of the petitioner has been declared to be conducted as an adult under Section 15 still the bail application shall be governed with the provision of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015 and in sup