JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State. 2. This criminal revision has been preferred for setting aside judgment dated 04.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2024 whereby the learned Presiding Officer has been pleased to dismiss the said appeal affirming judgment dated 19.11.2024 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sahibganj in Barharwa P.S. Case No No.86 of 2024, registered under section 302/376 of IPC and section 4/6 of POCSO Act, whereby the bail petition of the petitioner was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the name of the petitioner has come on confessional statement and the petitioner was aged about 16 years at the time of alleged occurrence. He also submits that the petitioner has been arrested on 21.6.2024 and since then, he is in Ramand Home and he is in custody for almost 19 months. He further submits that on the point of conduct of the petitioner, the social report is not against him, however, the learned court has been pleased to reject the bail petition filed by the petitioner. He next submits that the petitioner is being represented by his father and he is ready to give undertaking that the petitioner will not be allowed to be associated with any known criminal and the petitioner will also not be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger and he is ready to swear an affidavit in this regard. He next submits that both the learned court have rejected the bail petition of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner will come in association with the anti-social elements, if the bail is granted. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the name of the petitioner has come on confessional statement and he is facing the case under section 302 and section 376 of the IPC, and in view of that, the learned courts have rightly passed the order. 5. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, deals with bail to juveniles. 5. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, deals with bail to juveniles. On perusal of Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015, it is crystal clear that Section 12 of the Act overrides the bail provisions as contained in the Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for time being in force. It is further crystal clear that bail to the juvenile is a rule and refusal of the same is an exception and juvenile can be denied bail only on the following three grounds (i) if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal, or (ii) expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger, or, (iii) the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice. 6. From Section 12 of the said Act, it also transpires that seriousness of the alleged offence or the age of the juvenile are also no relevant consideration for denial of bail above 16 years of age and is alleged to have committed a heinous offence is also entitled to get bail under section 12 of the Act, 2015. There is no classification, whatsoever, provided in Section 12 of the Act, 2015 with regard to grant of bail. Section 12 of the Act is applicable to all juveniles in conflict with law without any discrimination of any nature. 7. The Juvenile Justice Act is based on belief that children are the future of the society and in case they go into conflict with law under some circumstances, they should be reformed and rehabilitated and not punished. No society can afford to punish its children. Punitive approach towards children in conflict with law would be self-destructive for the society. At the same time if the keeping of the child in custody is helpful in his development and rehabilitation or protection, only then it could be said that release of the child would defeat the ends of justice. 8. In view of above discussions, the Court is satisfied that the reasoning and conclusion of the learned appellate court as well as Juvenile Justice Board is that there is likelihood that the petitioner will come into the association of dreaded criminals and there is likelihood of moral, physical and psychological danger of the petitioner if released on bail, not founded on reasonable grounds. 9. 9. The gravity of allegation has not been properly appreciated and the mandatory provision of Section 12 of J.J. Act, 2015 as well as other provisions relating to the juvenile has declined to grant bail to the juvenile on the basis of unfounded apprehension. In the absence of any material or evidence of reasonable grounds, it cannot be said that his release would defeat the ends of justice and have failed to give reasons on three contingencies for declining the bail to the revisionist. The findings recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as appellate court are based on heinousness of the offence. Thus, the judgment dated 04.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2024 whereby the learned Presiding Officer has been pleased to dismiss the said appeal affirming the judgment dated 19.11.2024 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sahibganj in Barharwa P.S. Case No No.86 of 2024 are not sustainable in the eye of law and hence both the orders are set-aside and the present criminal revision is allowed. 10. Let the revisionist who is in observation home since 21.06.2024 be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian/father, in Barharwa P.S. Case No.86 of 2024, after furnishing a personal bond of his father (Nibaran Bagti) with two sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Sahibganj, subject to the following conditions: (i) Natural guardian/father will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the revisionist will not be permitted to go into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical, or psychological danger and further that the father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence. (ii) Natural guardian/father will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juvenile will pursue his study at the appropriate level which he would be encouraged to do besides other constructive activities and not be allowed to waste his time in unproductive and excessive recreational pursuits. (iii) Juvenile and natural guardian/father will report to the Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month commencing with the first Monday of March, 2026, and if during any calendar month the first Monday falls on a holiday, then on the following working day. (iii) Juvenile and natural guardian/father will report to the Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month commencing with the first Monday of March, 2026, and if during any calendar month the first Monday falls on a holiday, then on the following working day. (iv) The Probation Officer will keep a strict vigil on the activities of the juvenile and regularly draw up his social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Sahebganj, on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine. 11. Before imparting the judgment, it is necessary to point out that the identity of the juvenile in the present matter has been disclosed in the impugned judgment and order which violates the right to privacy and confidentiality of the juvenile and against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shilpa Mittal v. NCT Delhi, (2020) 2 SCC 787 wherein, it was held that the identity of the juvenile shall not be disclosed. 12. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist through his natural guardian/father. The memo of parties discloses the name of the juvenile. The Registry is directed to conceal the names of the juvenile from the cause list as well as the record of this case so that the names and identities are not disclosed as directed by the Supreme Court in Shilpa Mittal (supra) 13 This criminal revision petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.