HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1439/2025 1. “A” S/o Shri Aslam (Natural Guardian), Aged About 17 Years, Date Of Birth 06.11.2007 R/o Village Nandera Police Station Kaman District Deeg (Raj) At Present Detained In The Juvenile Home Bharatpur (Raj) Through Natural Guardian Father Shri Aslam S/o Shri Risal 2. “M” S/o Shri Hamid @ Kali (Natural Guardian), Aged About 11 Years, Date Of Birth 01.02.2014 R/o Village Nandera Police Station Kaman, District Deeg (Raj) At Present Detained In The Juvenile Home District Bharatpur (Raj) Through Natural Guardian Father Shri Hamid @ Kali S/o Shri Subhan Khan ----Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, Addl.GC-cum-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 07/10/2025 1. This criminal revision petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ‘the Act of 2015’) is directed against the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the Children Court (Commission for Protection of Child Rights) Act, 2005, Bharatpur (for short ‘the Appellate Court’) whereby the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the juveniles-petitioners through their guardians against the order dated 05.07.2025 passed by (2 of 5) [CRLR-1439/2025] the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bharatpur (for short ‘the trial Court’) on an application under Section 12 of the Act of 2015 whereby the prayer for releasing the juveniles- petitioners on bail was dismissed by the trial Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the allegation against the petitioners is of committing cyber fraud, but no incriminating evidence has been collected by the Police during course of investigation and now, the petitioners have been charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 111, 61(2) BNS and 66D &67A of IT Act. Counsel submits that the petitioners are in custody since the date of arrest and after investigation charge- sheet has been filed and trial will take its own time to conclude, therefore, indulgence of bail be granted to the juveniles-petitioners. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners and submitted that looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners, indulgence of bail be not granted to the petitioners. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. For ready reference, Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015, is reproduced hereunder:- “12(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code (3 of 5) [CRLR-1439/2025] of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person: Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.” 6. Perusal of Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015 clearly indicates that a delinquent juvenile ordinarily has to be released on bail irrespective of nature of offence alleged to have been committed by him unless it is shown by evidence that if he is released on bail, there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the delinquent juvenile is likely to bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The nature of offence and the merits of the case do not have any relevance. It is for the prosecution to bring on record such material while opposing the bail and make out any of the grounds provided in Section 12(1) of the Act of 2015 which may persuade the Court not to release the juvenile on bail. But in instant case, nothing is there on the record to show that the release of the juveniles-petitioners on bail is likely to bring them in association with any known criminal or expose them (4 of 5) [CRLR-1439/2025] to moral, physical or psychological danger or that their release would defeat the ends of justice. 7. Perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as by the Appellate Court indicate that the bail application submitted by the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that in case, the petitioners are released on bail, there are chances that they may come in the company of unknown criminals and the interest of justice would be defeated. Perusal of the orders indicate that no reason has been assigned for passing such observations. 8. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioners and looking to the fact that the petitioners are juvenile and they are below the age of 18 years and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and they are in custody and the trial is bound to take time and without making comments on merits and demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to accept the application filed by the petitioners. 9. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the Appellate Court and also the order dated 05.07.2025 passed by the trial Court are quashed and set aside and the juveniles-petitioners- “A” and “M” be released on bail in connection with FIR No.318/2025 registered at Police Station Kaman, District Deeg for the offences mentioned therein; provided natural guardians of both the juveniles-petitioners shall separately furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of concerned (5 of 5) [CRLR-1439/2025] Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board with the stipulation that on all subsequent dates of hearing, they shall produce the respective juveniles-petitioners before the said Court or any other Court till the enquiry or trial is concluded. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/7