@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
S. Pujahari, J. - Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Counsel for the State.
2. This Criminal Revision is revision is directed against the impugned order dated 07.09.2015 passed by the Learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhadrak dismissing the Criminal appeal No. 35 of 2015 and confirming the order dated 18.08.2015 passed by the Learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhadrak in Juvenile G.R. Case No. 26 of 2015 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to release him on bail.
3. It appears that the petitioner in this case was a juvenile in conflict with law and said to have been indicated in a case punishable under Section 376(2)(ii)/294/506 of the IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. The petitioner had made prayer for bail before the Learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhadrak under Section 12 of the Juvenile (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') which was refused on the ground of seriousness and heinousness of the offences committed by him so also repeating the ritual of the language used in concerned section, for rejection of the prayer. The petitioner challenged the same in the aforesaid criminal appeal, but the same was confirmed by the Learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhadrak.
4. Section 12 of the Act mandates that a juvenile in conflict with law be released on bail with or without surety or be placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the 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. From the aforesaid, it appears that the release on bail of a juvenile in conflict with law is a rule but refusal is an exception which can only be done in the existence of circumstances detrimental to the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law or if the same would defeat the ends of justice. Heinousness and seriousness of an offence has got nothing to do in consideration of the prayer for bail. The satisfaction to reject the prayer of a juvenile in conflict with law for bail on the ground of existence of the circumstances as state above must be based on material on record.
5. Keeping in mind the same, when the impugned order is addressed, it appears to this Court that virtually the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhadrak has not justified how the release of the juvenile in conflict with law was going to defeat the ends of justice which actuated the Court to refuse the juvenile in conflict with law to go on bail. Learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhadrak also in oblivious to the aforesaid fact and law refused to interfere with the order of the Learned Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhadrak in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, without appreciating the material available on record in this regard and confirmed the same.
6. Therefore, both the forums having exercised jurisdiction vested on them with material irregularity, this criminal revision is allowed and the impugned orders of the Learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhadrak which was confirmed by the order of the appellate court stands set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhadrak, to hear the matter afresh and pass a reasoned order, within ten days of production of a certified copy of this order, taking into account the aforesaid observation and law in this regard.
7. With the aforesaid order, this criminal revision stands disposed of being allowed.
