Juvenile must be granted bail unless specific grounds for denial are substantiated.

1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under S.53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (henceforth ' the Act, 2000') read with S.397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth - 'CrPC'), juvenile / applicant Rajesh Lakra has filed the instant revision questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment dated 10-04-2014 by which his appeal under S.52 of the Act, 2000 has been dismissed by the Court of Session, Jashpur.

2. The necessary facts required for adjudication of (2.1) Applicant Rajesh Lakra, aged about 16 years, was arrested by Police Station Narayanpur in Crime No. 15/2014 for commission of offence under S.376 and S.307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth ' IPC ') read with S.3 and S.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (henceforth ' the Act, 2012' ) and was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Jashpur (henceforth 'the Board').
(2.2) The allegation of the prosecution is that on 14-02-2014 between 4:00 A.M. to 5:00 A.M., the applicant committed rape with the prosecutrix and also caused her grievous hurt leading to lodging of a report and filing of a charge - sheet against him before the Board.
(2.3) The applicant filed an application under S.12 of the Act, 2000 before the Board claiming his release on bail. A report was called by the Board from its Probation Officer and after considering the report, the Board, by order dated 12-03-2014, rejected the said application and directed to keep the applicant in an observation home.
(2.4) Feeling aggrieved, the applicant filed an appeal under S.52 of the Act, 2000, being Criminal Appeal No. 28/2014 before the Court of Session, Jashpur. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur, finding no merit in the appeal and accepting the findings of the Board, rejected the appeal vide impugned judgment dated 10-04-2014.

3. Shri J. K. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the Board as well as the Court of Session has committed an apparent and manifest legal error in rejecting the application filed by the applicant in an unwarranted manner. He would further submit that the applicant has got no criminal proclivity and there is no reasonable ground for believing that the release of the applicant 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.

4. On the other hand, Shri. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State / non - applicant would support the impugned judgment and would submit that grant of bail to the applicant would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger and as such his application has rightly been rejected by the Board and the Court of Session.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the Social Investigation Report dated 28-07-2014 submitted by the Probation Officer of the Board.

6. The question that falls for consideration is whether the Court of Session was justified in rejecting the application filed by the applicant for grant of bail under S.12 of the Act, 2000?

7. Before considering the submissions raised, it would be appropriate to have a quick glimpse on the relevant provision governing bail to a juvenile enacted in the Act, 2000.

8. Sub-section (1) of S.12 of the Act, 2000 reads thus:
'12. Bail of juvenile.-- (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non - bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything