JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

The petitioner-child in conflict-with-law (hereinafter referred to as 'CCL') has filed the revision petition challenging the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rewari (hereinafter referred to as 'Juvenile Justice Board') and the order dated 05.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Rewari. By way of impugned orders, the prayer made on behalf of the CCL for grant of bail has been dismissed.

2. The case set out, in the FIR No.217 dated 25.08.2024 registered under Sections 74, 96, 123, 127(2) and 137(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter to be referred as 'BNS') and Sections 8 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter to be referred as 'POCSO'), at Police Station Sector-6, Dharuhera, District Rewari (as stated in the petition) is as follows:-

'To, SHO Sahib, Dharuhera, Sector-6, Learned Sir Ji, today in the morning time about 10.00 a.m. for prayer I go to plucking flowers. When I was plucking the flowers then one boy of my school and another was his friend. The name of that boy is Nxxx. They came with Breeza car and asked me we will arrange flowers, thereafter sprayed some substance on the face thereafter I do not what happened when I gained consciousness I found herself in that Breeza car and my school mate was teasing with me, when I started weeping upon that I was told that she shall be dropped there however if she raise alarm at home than she shall be killed. On returned home, I narrated this to my father and with that car two motorcycles were also there. They used to laugh when they returned after dropping me and I narrated the number of vehicle to my father. I see the number of vehicle when they were returning after dropping me. The number of vehicle is HR-34L- 1695 and my age is 14 year. Sd/-Sxxx daughter of xxxxxx, resident of Village xxxxxx, Tehsil xxxxxx, District xxxxxxx dated 25.08.2024, xxxxxxxxxx present address: xxxxx City, Plot No.xxx, Sector-xxx, xxxxx.'

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner was arrested on 26.08.2024 and is in protective custody since then. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case with ulterior motive and mala fide intention as the victim herself initiated communication with the petitioner through Instagram and other social media platforms. Learned counsel has further reiterated that the victim in order to evade consequences from her family, the petitioner has been unjustly implicated, despite the fact that the victim is equally responsible. According to learned counsel, there is no substantiated evidence available against the petitioner that he was harassing the victim and the allegations appear to be contrived. Furthermore, it is trite law that the severity or gravity of the offence cannot be the sole criterion for denying the bail to a juvenile. The date of birth of the petitioner has been stated to be 14.07.2008 as per which the CCL is aged about 16 years and 01 month at the time of alleged offence. Learned counsel has further stated that after the completion of the investigation, challan (final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., 1973) was filed on 30.09.2024. According to the learned counsel, both the Courts below have not appreciated the Social Information Report (SIR) in the right perspective and passed the impugned orders in a hasty manner without considering the settled principles of law. Learned counsel, while relying upon the statutory provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, has argued that the petitioner ought to have been released on regular bail in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. According to th