JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Satendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. None appeared on behalf of the informant/respondent no.2.

2. Perused the record.

3. This criminal revision has been filed under section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act challenging the order dated 06.12.2021 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Mainpuri and also challenging the order dated 10.02.2022 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mainpur in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2021 affirming the order of the Juvenile Justice Board and declining bail to the juvenile in a matter arising out of Case Crime No.162 of 2021, under sections 376AB I.P.C. and section-5M/6 POCSO Act, Police Station-Elau, District-Mainpuri.

4. Contentions of the revisionist are as below:-

The orders impugned are arbitrary, unjust and have been passed against settled principles of law and against the mandate of section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act; the assumptions of the courts below that in case he is released on bail, he shall be exposed to physical, moral and psychological danger and that the ends of justice shall stand defeated are based on no evidence whatsoever; the bail has been declined without any cogent reasons and on surmises and conjectures; there is nothing on record to show that the juvenile was in company of criminals before the arrest; he himself is having no criminal history; the case against him is false; this conclusion is baseless that the parents are not having any control over the revisionist. The bail has been declined on the basis of gravity of the offence, which is against the settled principles of law.

5. In this case, an F.I.R. was lodged by the mother of the victim with the allegations that when her daughter, aged about 6 years, was playing outside her house below the shed, the accused juvenile, aged about 15 years, lured her on the pretext of giving toffee and took her behind a hut and committed rape on her. Her daughter started bleeding profusely; she was brought to the house by her cousin; when they went to the parents of the juvenile to complain against him, his mother thrashed him (juvenile), the victim was given first aid and was referred to for higher medical assistance, where she was examined again under sedation. 1 cm tear was found in fourchette and she was bleeding. Finding the accused as juvenile, the matter was brought before the Juvenile Justice Board; his age was found about 12 years and 10 months in an age determination inquiry done on 05.10.2021; the social investigation report was called, wherein it was observed by the District Probation Officer that the boy requires strict control and supervision. The bail to the juvenile was declined by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appeal preferred on behalf of the juvenile was also dismissed.

6. Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 deals with the matters of bail to the juvenile:-

“When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person.”

In continuation thereof, there is a proviso, which says that:- such person shall not be so released, if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.

7. Thus, it is clear that bail to a juvenile is not must in all cases as it can be denied for certain reasons. The law does not