JUDGMENT :

Shalini Singh Nagpal, J.

The revisionist, a child-in-conflict with Law, has challenged order dated 27.11.2024 of learned Judge, Special Court, Kapurthala, and order dated 04.09.2024, of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kapurthala. Vide impugned order dated 04.09.2024, application for regular bail filed by the revisionist was declined. The order was upheld in appeal, on 28.11.2024.

2. On behalf of the child-in-conflict with law (hereinafter referred to as 'the CCL'), it has been argued that a false case was foisted on the petitioner, who was innocent. The CCL was in custody for a period of more than one year. There was two months' delay in registration of the FIR; the CCL was a student of 10+2 and an outstanding sports person. Referring to the allegations in the FIR, it was argued that the mobile tower location of the CCL did not match with the victim girl or with other accused persons, on the days of the alleged occurrence. No obscene video of the victim girl was recovered by the police from the mobile phone of the CCL. Even the DNA report was not incriminating.

3. It was further argued that bail application of the CCL was rejected in complete violation of the mandate of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2015'). Learned counsel urged that except for the allegations in the FIR, there was no material on record to show that release of the child in conflict with law was likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. It was argued that even if the allegations were grave and heinous, bail could not be declined in routine manner except when there was some cogent material brought by the prosecution to bring the case within the proviso of Section 12 of the Act of 2015. He, thus, prayed that the impugned orders of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kapurthala and learned Judge, Special Court, Kapurthala, be set aside and the revisionist be enlarged on bail. In support of his prayer, learned counsel referred to Jatin vs. State of Haryana, 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 23, Harsh vs. State of Punjab (CrM-M-47646 of 2021, decided on 16.03.2022), Sandeep vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2007(15) R.C.R.(Criminal), 489, Sandeep @ Sipi vs. State of Punjab, 2016(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 776, Tarsem vs State of Haryana, 2006(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 945, Vijay Kumar @ Chhotu (minor) through his mother vs. State of Punjab, 2016(5) R.C.R.(Criminal) 897, Juvenile in Coflict with Law V vs. The State of Rajasthan and another, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 582, Partap Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and another, 2005(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 836 and X Juvenile vs. State of U.P. and another (Criminal Revision No.1185 of 2024, decided on 02.05.2024).

4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, supported the impugned orders arguing that the revisionist/CCL was booked for a heinous offence, thus, the opinion of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kapurthala and that of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, was well founded. Considering the nature of the offence, the CCL was not entitled to the concession prayed for as his release would defeat the ends of justice.

5. A few facts may first be noticed.

6. According to the case set up, one 'J' (name withheld) lodged a complaint stating that her daughter-victim (date of birth 01.01.2008) a student of class 10+1 looked scared and nervous for the last one month and was not speaking with anyone. She was reluctant to go to school. When she made inquiries, she evaded answers. On 05.07.2024, the victim told her that on 06.05.2024, at about 12:00 noon, one Dev Kumar, student of her school in class 10+2, commerce stream followed her in the girl's toilet, captured an obscene video by opening her shirt and extended threats to make the video viral and to kill her family members, if she raised ala