The court emphasized the gravity of the offense and the potential danger to society in denying bail to the juvenile offender charged with a heinous crime.

ORDER : – This is criminal revision filed by the petitioner under section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (herein after referred to as the “Act of 2015”) against order dated 2-3-2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 26/2021 by the Sessions Judge, Jhabua, District Jhabua (M. P.), whereby the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the order dated 2-2-2021 passed in Juvenile Inquiry Case No. 36/2021 (Crime No. 59/2021) by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jhabua, District Jhabua (M. P.) wherein the petitioner’s application under section 12 of the Act of 2015 for grant of bail in Crime No. 59/2021 registered at Police Station, Jhabua District Jhabua (M. P.) for commission of offence under sections 342, 376(2)(n), 506 and 376(a)(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under section 5(m) read with section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, has been rejected.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is aged around 15 years old and on 16-1-2021 at around 10.30 A.M. (in the morning) he committed rape of a minor girl aged around 10-11 years old whereby she was left bleeding for a prolonged period of time. In her statement to the Police, she has also stated that around three days earlier also, the petitioner had committed rape on her. The petitioner is presently lodged in Child Welfare Home, Jhabua.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Courts below have erred in not allowing the petitioner’s application filed under section 12 of the Act of 2015 and not releasing him on bail. The counsel has also relied upon certain judgments of this Court in the case of Satyam vs. State of M. P., reported as 2018(1) Cr.L.R. M. P. 51, Girraj vs. State of M. P., reported as (2006) 3 M.P.L.J. 325, Mayur vs. State of M. P., reported as 2016 SCC Online MP 7285 and Nishruddin vs. State of M. P., reported as 2016 SCC Online MP 1109.

4. Counsel has further submitted that the Courts have erred in not considering the fact that none of ingredients of the proviso to section 12 of the Act of 2015 are satisfied in the present case, as there is no evidence or material on record that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to come in contact with known criminal or in the event of his release, he would expose himself to moral, psychological or physical danger; and his release on bail, would defeat the ends of justice.

5. Counsel has further submitted that even the Probationary Officer whose report is on record before this Court, has given a favourable opinion in favour of the petitioner. Thus, it is submitted that the petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

6. Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that looking to the grievousness of the petitioner’s offence, as he is charged under section 376 of Indian Penal Code, thus, it is submitted that the petition be dismissed.

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record as also the case diary.

8. From the record, this Court finds that so far as the age of the petitioner is concerned, he is said to be 15 years whereas the prosecutrix in the present case was born on 14-9-2010 whereas the incident took place on 16-1-2021 and thus, the age of the prosecutrix at the time of incident was 10 years 4 months and 2 days to be precise.

9. Case diary also reveals that the prosecutrix has in her statement recorded under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code also alleged that the petitioner had also raped her around three days ago and had also threatened her of dire consequences if she disclosed the incident to any person.

10. Her MLC reveals that she was initially treated at District Hospital, Jhabua on 16-1-2021, wherein it is noted that she was bleeding from her vagina since afternoon and had changed 5-6 pads since then. This report is timed at 9.00 P.M. (in the night) and after her blood transfusion i