The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Juvenile Justice Board must consider the mandatory provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and make an objective assessment based on reasonable grounds before rejecting a juvenile's bail application.

ORDER : – The Present Criminal Revision has been preferred under section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “J. J. Act, 2015”) against the judgment dated 21-7-2022 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge Waidhan Distrit Singrauli, in Criminal Appeal No. 36/2022 arising out of Crime No. 665/2022 whereby the Appellate Court has rejected the appeal and affirmed the order dated 12-7-2022 passed by Member, Juvenile Justice Board, Singrauli. The Juvenile Justice Board has rejected the bail application of Juvenile A, which had been filed by his natural guardian/father, under section 12 of “J. J. Act, 2015”, in Crime No. 665/2022 under sections 302 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5/6 of POCSO Act.

2. Being aggrieved by the appeal judgment and order dated 21-7-2022 passed by the Appellate Court as well as the order dated 12-7-2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, the Juvenile-A through his father has filed this criminal revision before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that at the time of commission of offence, Juvenile was below 18 years of age. He was 12 years and 9 months old at the time of incident as per educational certificate date of birth of Juvenile-A is 5-9-2009. He has no criminal antecedent.

4. It is further submitted that Juvenile-A is not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated during the investigation without any material evidence. It is further submitted that after three days of incident, the Juvenile-A has been implicated and apprehended by the police on 15-5-2022 on the basis of suspicion. It is further submitted that there is no evidence to show that if the Juvenile-A is released on bail, his release is 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. No such findings were recorded as to how he will come in contact with known criminals and how he will be exposed to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The Juvenile-A is in custody in an observation home since 16-5-2022.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the Juvenile-A has not committed any offence and has no criminal antecedent except the present case. He is not a previous convict and is not associated with any kind of other criminal activities. There is no report regarding any previous criminal antecedents of the family of the applicant and there is no chance of the juvenile-A re-indulgence to bring him into association with known criminal. The natural guardian/father of the applicant is a government servant as he is employed in a school. He is ready to give an undertaking that if Juvenile-A’s is released on bail, he will keep him in his custody and look after him properly and has assured on behalf of the juvenile that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall make the juvenile available before the J. J. Court whenever required and is ready to accept all the conditions whatsoever are imposed by the Court upon him.

6. It has been further submitted that the J. J. Board as well as the Appellate Court have not appreciated the Social Information Report of the Probation Officer in its right perspective and passed the impugned order and judgment in a cursory manner without considering the object of the law enacted for the benefit of the Juvenile and have refused to release the applicant on bail. It is submitted that a perusal of the impugned orders demonstrates that the same has been passed on flimsy grounds, which have occasioned a gross miscarriage of justice. The judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below are erroneous and bad in law and are based on erroneous appreciation of the facts and law.

7. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has supported the impugned ju