The main legal point established is that the denial of bail to a juvenile under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act should be based on reasonable grounds supported by evidence, and not on conjectures or surmises.

1. Juvenile applicant Styam alias Shital through his mother Maya Devi has filed this revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short “the Act”) against the judgment dated 20.11.2017 passed by the Special Judge under POCSO Act at Morena in Criminal Appeal No.200 of 2017 cause title Satyam alias Shital Vs. State of M.P through P.S. Ambah district Morena rejecting his appeal and affirming the order dated 16.11.2017 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Morena (for short the J.J. Board) in Criminal Case No.312 of 2017 rejecting the bail application of the applicant under Section 12 of the Act arising out of Crime No.615 of 2017 registered at Police Station Ambah against him for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 354 of the I.P.C and 11(iv) r.w 12 of the POCSO Act.

2. Intrinsic facts for the purpose of this revision are as follows:-

(2.1) On 30.7.2017 at about 11.10 a.m., the victim girl-complainant aged about 13 years accompanied by her father Sanjay and uncle Nitin lodged an oral FIR at Police Station Ambah stating that she is a resident of Ambah town and that she is a student of 9th class. Applicant Satyam had been stalking and making sexual advances at her for the last 2 to 3 months whenever she goes to school. He used to say her to talk to him so that he would feel good. On 30.10.2017 at about 6.30 p.m. when she was on the way in Ambah town, the applicant stopped her, caught her hands with sexual intent and thrusted a letter in her hands asking her to read it later. He also threatened her that if she reports the matter to the police, then he would harm her physically. Upon her oral report, the police recorded the F.I.R and registered a case at Crime No.615 of 2017 against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 354 I.P.C and 11 (iv) r.w 12 POCSO Act. After the completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet before the J.J. Board Morena. Thereupon, a Criminal Case No.312 of 2017 came to be registered, which is pending for trial.

(2.2) On behalf of the applicant a bail application under Section 12 of the Act was moved before the J.J. Board Morena, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved thereby, an appeal was filed which was also dismissed by the learned appellate Judge vide the impugned judgment dated 20.11.2017.

(2.3) Hence, this revision.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that both the J.J. Board and the appellate Judge had not decided the applicant's bail application taking into consideration the provisions of Section 12 of the Act in true perspective. On the other hand, the bail applications were decided on the conjectures and surmises that if the applicant is released on bail, then he would come into contact with the persons of criminal background which would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. He submits that the applicant is a student of first year of graduation course and his date of birth is 22.5.2002. He submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and that if he remains in observation home for long, then his education will be badly suffered. He submits that the applicant's mother would in future take proper care of him and that she would see that he would not come in the contact of any person of criminal mindset. Upon these submissions, he prays to allow the revision setting-aside the impugned judgment.

4. Per contra learned public prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of rejection of grant of bail to the applicant.

5. It shall be relevant and useful to refer to first the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, which provides for the release of a juvenile, who is in conflict with law, on bail during the pendency of a case against him before the J.J. Board. The provisions read thus:-

“12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law.-

(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have comm