JUDGMENT :

Wanlura Diengdoh, J.

1. Matter has been taken up via video conferencing.

2. This instant revision petition was preferred under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 assailing the order dated 28.09.2020 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Khliehriat in the East Jaintia Hills District of Meghalaya in Khliehriat P.S Case No. 34(9) of 2020 under Section 376(1) IPC read with Section 3(j) (ii) 5, 6, of the POCSO Act, 2012 rejecting the bail application filed under Section 12 of the said Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection) Act on behalf of the Child in Conflict with Law (hereinafter referred to as CCL) Shri. Emphi Suchiang.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 27.08.2020 an intimation report was received by the Jowai Police from Dr. D. Nongpluh of Dr. Norman Tunnel Hospital, Jowai stating to the effect that on examination of the alleged victim (said to be 16 years of age), she discovered that the said victim was pregnant and on enquiry, it was told that she had a physical relationship with one Saving Suchiang @ Emphi Suchiang the CCL above named. Accordingly, the said Khliehriat P.S. Case No. 34(9) 2020 was registered and the matter was forwarded to the learned Special Judge, POCSO Court, Khliehriat.

4. The learned Special Judge (POCSO) on examination of the CCL and on perusal of the birth certificate came to a finding that he is a minor of about 17 years of age and accordingly, vide order dated 14.09.2020 transferred the case to the Juvenile Justice Board, Khliehriat who directed that the CCL be kept at the Observation Home (Boys), Shillong.

5. The mother of the CCL then preferred a bail application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 which was moved before the said learned Principal Magistrate, JJB, Khliehriat on 28.9.2020. However, vide order dated 28.9.2020, the learned Principal Magistrate rejected the said bail application mainly on the ground that at that juncture, the statement of the survivor is yet to be recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

6. Being highly aggrieved with the said impugned order, the petitioner who is the uncle of the CCL has preferred this instant revision petition assailing the same, inter alia on the ground that the learned Principal Magistrate, JJB has made a serious error in passing the said impugned order without taking into account the provision of Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015.

7. Another ground raised by the petitioner is that the learned Principal Magistrate, JJB has refused bail on the ground that the statement of the survivor is yet to be recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which runs contrary to what is provided under Section 12(1) of the JJ Act 2015, where it was provided bail can be denied to a juvenile only on the ground that (a) the release of such juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal and (b) that if released he may be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger or (c) that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

8. Again another ground pointed out by the petitioner is that the learned Principal Magistrate without considering the fact that the alleged survivor has admitted to having a relationship with the CCL herein and as such, the act attracting the offence alleged was entered into mutually, therefore, there is no question of apprehension of any danger or harm either to the alleged survivor or the CCL, has passed the impugned order without any application of mind.

9. The fact that the mother of the CCL who had preferred the bail application before the learned Principal Magistrate, JJB had undertaken that she will take full responsibility and shall ensure that the CCL undergo proper counseling has also not been appreciated by the learned Principal Magistrate, JJB while passing the impugned order, it was further submitted.

10. Mr. T.L. Jyrwa, learned counsel for the petitioner in his submission has giv