Bail under the Juvenile Justice Act can only be denied with substantial justification based on specified conditions in Section 12.

1. This revision is heard finally today at the stage of motion.

2. The applicant is aggrieved by order dated 29-11-2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 286/2005 by Sessions Judge, Ambikapur whereby the appeal preferred against the order, dated 23-11-2005 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board refusing to grant bail to the applicant, was dismissed.

3. Brief facts as revealed by the case diary which has been produced by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State are that on 6-10-2005 the applicant aged about 16 years, and apparently a juvenile committed rape on Sonkunwar while she was returning from the market to her house, after dragging her to the field and pushing her on the ground. The case diary statements of the prosecutrix as well as her parents Leelavati and Babulal revealed that there was a compromise between the parties due to which no report was lodged about the incident. It further reveals that 2 days after the occurrence since there was a quarrel with the sister and mother of the applicant, a report was lodged in Police Station - Baikunthpur which was registered as Crime Number - 279/2005 under S.376, IPC. The medical examination report of the prosecutrix also shows that no external or internal injuries were found on her and there was no evidence of rape. It was also opined that the prosecutrix was habituated to sexual intercourse.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has contended that in order to refuse bail under S.12 of the Juvenile Justice Board (Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Court has to satisfy that reasonable grounds exist for believing that the release is likely to bring the juvenile 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. Thus, the existence of one of the three conditions mentioned above was a sine qua non for refusing to grant bail under S.12 of the Act. Learned counsel drew my attention to the order dated 23-11-2005 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board which shows that Juvenile Justice Board has refused to grant bail only on the ground that release would expose the juvenile to moral danger and thereby defeat the ends of justice. The appellate Court in its order dated 29-11-2005 stated that the release of the juvenile on bail would have adverse effect on the prosecutrix and affect the proceedings which would directly defeat the ends of justice. It thus appears that both the Courts below have not given any cogent reasons which would go to show that one of the conditions necessary as aforesaid exist, for refusing to grant bail under S.12 of the Act.

5. Upon a careful perusal of the case diary, it appears that no report was lodged on the date of occurrence since a compromise had been effected between the parties. It also shows that F.I.R. was lodged after two days only after there was a quarrel with the sister and mother of the applicant. The medical report of the prosecutrix also shows that no definite opinion about rape could be given in the absence of external or internal injuries on her person. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, the grounds stated by both the Courts below for refusing to grant bail do not fall under any of the exceptions for refusing bail under S.12 of the Act.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that none of the conditions necessary for refusing to grant bail to the Juvenile offender under S.12 of the Act exist in the present case. The applicant is, therefore, in my considered opinion, entitled to be released on bail. This Criminal Revision is allo