The court clarified that the gravity of an offense is a significant consideration when evaluating bail for juveniles, especially in serious cases.

1. The present Criminal Revision has been preferred challenging the order dated 01.02.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Surajpur, Distt. Surajput, in Criminal Revision No.01/2016 whereby the revision (which ought to have been appeal) preferred by the Applicant under S.12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection of Children) Act 2000 (hereinafter 'the Act, 2000') was rejected dismissing the revision against the order of rejection of bail by the Court below on 13.01.2016 in Crime No. 70/2016.

2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the applicant, minor, and two other accused persons (who were major), are said to have engaged / hired one Bolero Car from Vindhya Nagar, Uttar Pradesh to visit Kudargarh, Chhattisgarh for religious purpose. It is said that en route the applicant along with other accused persons near Harai Nala at Biharpur, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, is said to have stopped the Car and assaulted the driver of said Car. In the course, it is also said that the present applicant fired bullet shot upon the driver due to which he succumbed, thereafter they had thrown the body of driver and fled away with the Bolero Car. Initially an FIR was lodged against the unknown person. subsequently during the course of investigation it was found that it was the applicant and two other accused persons who have committed the crime. Pistol was also seized from the possession of the present applicant.

3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that as per S.12 of the Act, 2000, for the purpose of releasing the juvenile on bail, the gravity of offence is not to be seen. It is further submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever to implead the applicant. The applicant is a minor and the maximum sentence which could be imposed is three years out of which he has already remained at observation home for a period of ten months, and therefore, it is a fit case where the applicant can be enlarged on bail.

4. However, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application on the ground that taking into consideration the nature and gravity of offence committed by the applicant, it is not a fit case where the applicant be enlarged on bail.

5. Counsel for the applicant relies upon the judgment of this court in case of Sandeep Vs. State of Chhattisgarh , reported in 2007 CriLJ 1942 (Chh) and Bharat @ Bharat and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh , reported in 2005 (4) MPHT 33(CG) wherein considering the nature of offence, the court below while considering the provisions of S.12 of the Act, 2000, has held that, in the event an application for grant of bail is moved by the juvenile, it becomes obligatory on the part of the court to release him on bail and that the gravity of offence is not to be seen at the relevant point of time.

6. Having heard the counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this court is of the opinion that the present is a case where the track record of the applicant itself speaks the nature of the applicant. He is implicated as one of the prime accused in the case under S.302 IPC. In addition, if we take into consideration the manner in which the offence has been committed also shows that it is not a case where the incident occurred because of spur of moment, but it is a case where preplanned execution of the case has been committed by the applicant along with two other persons. Apart from this case, other case of loot are also found to have been registered against the applicant.

7. Before considering the case of the applicant it would be appropriate if S.12(1) of the Act is of 2000 is taken into consideration and for ready reference the same is being reproduced hereunder:
'S.12: (1) When any person accused of a bailable