The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the absence of reasonable grounds for believing that a juvenile's release would bring him into association with known criminals or expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger when granting bail under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

ORDER

1. I have heard Mr. Pitambar Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.N. Rout, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State in video conferencing mode.

2. This is an application under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short 'the JJ Act ') for grant of bail to the CICL (name withheld) in connection with J.J. Case No.42 of 2020 arising out of Nayakote P.S. Case No.59 of 2020 in the Court of the Juvenile Justice Board, Keonjhar, registered for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 of I.P.C and challenging the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum- Special Judge, Keonjhar and the J.J. Board, Keonjhar rejecting his prayer for bail.

3. The prayer for bail of the CICL was rejected by the learned J.J. Board on 15.10.2020 and thereafter by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Keonjhar in Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2020 on 22.12.2020.

4. The said orders have been challenged in this criminal revision.

5. The prosecution allegations in brief are that the deceased had illicit relations with the mother of the CICL and on 13.10.2020 at about 6.00 p.m., the deceased had come to the house of the CICL and the latter assaulted the deceased with an axe which resulted in his death.Multiple incised injuries were found on the body of the deceased.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-CICL is aged about 17 years old. He is detained in the observation home since 15.10.2020 and charge sheet has been filed in the meanwhile. He further submits he has no criminal antecedent and the social investigation report is favourable and his release is necessary in view of his age and in view of the mandate of Sec. 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. He states that omnibus allegations have been made against the petitioner. He further submits that the CICL is a student of +2 Arts of Pateswar Higher Secondary School (Jr. College), Suakati, Keonjhar and has filled up the form to appear in the Final Examinations which were scheduled to be held in May 2021 for which he has filed I.A No 218 of 2021 for interim bail. He has relied on the decisions rendered by this Court in the case of Naresh Naik -Vrs.- State : (2008) 41 OCR 553, Ashik Kumar Sahu -Vrs.- State : (2012) 52 OCR 356, Sumanta Bindhani -Vrs.- State: 2017 (1) OLR 1137, Ranjit Paika -Vrs.- State : 2018 (II) OLR 13, Chittaranjan @ Biswajit Sahoo -Vrs.- State : 2018 (II) OLR 377 and Re-A Juvenile -Vrs.- State : (2009) 42 OCR 315 in support of his prayer for bail.

7. This Court in the case of Naresh Naik (supra) referred to the ratio in the case of Abrahim Kristian -Vrs.- State : 1989 (1) OLR 89 that release of a juvenile on bail is the rule unless there appear reasonable grounds for believing that his release is likely to bring him in association with known criminals or expose him to moral danger and relying on the favourable report of the Superintendent Probation Hostel, directed for release of the juvenile on bail. In the case of Ashik Kumar Sahu (supra), who was an accused in case registered under section 376 (2) (g) I.P.C., this Court referring to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 directed the JCL to be released on bail. In the case of Sumanta Bindhani (supra) who was accused in a case under Section 20(b) (ii) (c) of the NDPS Act, this Court held that Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 over rides the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and directed for release of the petitioner therein. In the case of Chittaranjan @ Biswajit Sahoo (supra), the CCL had been chargsheeted for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. Referring to the provisions of section 12 of the Act, it was held that gravity of the offence is not to be considered but the circumstances in which the offence was committed and whether his environment is conducive is to be considered.

8. In the c