ORDER : 1. This Criminal Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children), Act 2015 (for Short “Act of 2015”) has been filed challenging the legality, judicial propriety and correctness of order dated 05.05.2022 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Children Court Bilaspur(CG), in Criminal Appeal No.73/2022 whereby the Ld. Court dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by the applicant against the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur (CG) dismissing the application for grant of bail by the applicant under Section 12 of Act of 2015.. 2. The case of prosecution in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report alleging that on 24.02.2022 at about 5:35 pm when he was sitting in the garden of Samta colony with his friends Naveen Mahadeva, Uday Chakardhari, Harish Meshram and Dadu Yadaw, some persons juvenile-conflict-with-law and their friends from Talapara came there and some hot talk took place among them. It is further alleged that on the very next day i.e. on 25.02.2022 again the accused persons came and assaulted the complainant and his friends, due to which they sustained grievous injuries. Injured was taken to the hospital where one Navin Mahadeva was declared dead and another injured Uday Chakardhari was admitted in the hospital in serious condition. On the basis of said complaint aforesaid offence have been registered against the accused persons. 3. Learned senior counsel for the applicant juvenile-conflict-with-law vehemently argued that the provisions of Section 12 of Act of 2015 mandates that “the juvenile shall be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of the probation officer or under the care of any fit person. Provided that such person shall not be released on bail if there appears reasonable ground 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”. In the case, in hand, learned Court below has given a finding that looking to the seriousness of the offence, appeal is dismissed and the Court below has not considered the provision of Section 12 of Act of 2015 in its proper perspective and thereby committed irregularity while rejecting the appeal. In the case, in hand, learned Court below has given a finding that looking to the seriousness of the offence, appeal is dismissed and the Court below has not considered the provision of Section 12 of Act of 2015 in its proper perspective and thereby committed irregularity while rejecting the appeal. He further submits that in order to find out the physical and mental status of juvenile in conflict with law there is a provision under Section 14 and 15 of Act of 2015. He submits that the provision of Section 15 was considered and the finding under Section 15 of the Act of 2015 has already been given by Juvenile Justice Board to try the offence before the Juvenile Justice Board and not before the Children Court, therefore, the revision should be allowed and the applicant should be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is a categorical finding recorded by learned Court below with regard to the seriousness of the offence and also given a finding that in the interest of justice, the applicant juvenile-conflict-with-law shall not be released on bail. She further submits that these findings are based on proper assessment of the material placed before it and therefore the finding recorded does not suffer from any patent illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the objector submits that the offence is serious in nature and allegation for committing a crime by the accused persons are also apparent from the injury caused to the deceased and one injured and the law requires that not only the rights of the juvenile in conflict with law but also the right of the victim has to be looked into. To buttress his submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in CRR No.364 of 2014 decided on 06.12.2016. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions. 7. The relevant provision of Section 12 of Act of 2015 is quote below:- “12. To buttress his submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in CRR No.364 of 2014 decided on 06.12.2016. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions. 7. The relevant provision of Section 12 of Act of 2015 is quote below:- “12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law.- (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 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 persons 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. 2. xxx xxx xxx 3. xxx xxx xxx 4. xxx xxx xxx 8. From the perusal of above provision, it appears that there is no absolute right of juvenile conflict with law that in any situation he/she shall be released on bail, rather his/her right is subject to some rider. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2012) 5 SCC 201 in Paras 3 and 23 observed as under:- “3. Juvenile Justice Act was enacted with a laudable object of providing a separate forum or a special court for holding trial of children/juvenile by the juvenile court as it was felt that children become delinquent by force of circumstance and not by choice and hence they need to be treated with care and sensitivity while dealing and trying cases involving criminal offence. But when an accused is alleged to have committed a heinous offence like rape and murder or any other grave offence when he ceased to be a child on attaining the age of 18 years, but seeks protection of the Juvenile Justice Act under the ostensible plea of being a minor, should such an accused be allowed to be tried by a juvenile court or should he be referred to a competent court of criminal jurisdiction where the trial of other adult persons are held. 23. Hence, while the courts must be sensitive in dealing with the juvenile who is involved in cases of serious nature like sexual molestation, rape, gang rape, murder and host of other offences, the accused cannot be allowed to abuse the statutory protection by attempting to prove himself as a minor when the documentary evidence to prove his minority gives rise to a reasonable doubt about his assertion of minority. Under such circumstance, the medical evidence based on scientific investigation will have to be given due weight and precedence over the evidence based on school administration records which give rise to hypothesis and speculation about the age of the accused. The matter however would stand on a different footing if the academic certificates ad school records are alleged to have been with held deliberately with ulterior motive and authenticity of the medical evidence is under challenge by the prosecution.” (Emphasis Supplied) 10. Though in case of Om Prakash (Supra) age of accused was under dispute but it has been observed that the Court must be sensitive in dealing with juvenile involved in case of serious nature. 11. In the light of above pronouncements, it is apparent that in the contingency where there appears reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring the juvenile in conflict with law into association with known criminal or expose him to any moral, physical or psychological danger or that the person’s release would defeat the end of Justice, would necessarily be a consideration while granting bail to the juvenile conflict with law. The word ‘ends of justice’ is of wide import, and it can’t be given a restrictive meaning. Seriousness of offence, manner in which the offence is committed, the rights of the victim, are some of the relevant considerations for coming to a conclusion to provide proper meaning to word ‘ends of justice’. 12. The word ‘ends of justice’ is of wide import, and it can’t be given a restrictive meaning. Seriousness of offence, manner in which the offence is committed, the rights of the victim, are some of the relevant considerations for coming to a conclusion to provide proper meaning to word ‘ends of justice’. 12. In the light of aforesaid position of law on examination of material available against the present applicant, this Court finds that the allegation of assault on the deceased as well as on the injured is against the applicant juvenile-conflict-with-law. Therefore, looking to the evidence collected so far and the manner in which the offence was committed, the finding which has been recorded by Court below appears to be reasonably based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence adduced by the prosecution and also as per circumstances of the case. This Court after giving thoughtful consideration to the material produced before it does not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the impugned order which requires any interference by this Court. In the opinion of this Court grant of bail to applicant juvenile-conflict-law would defeat the ends of justice. Thus, the revision petition being without any substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.