JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing through Video Conferencing [V.C.] on behalf of the respondent State. 2. This criminal revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge, (Children Court), Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2025 whereby the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected in connection with Lohardaga P.S. Case No.210 of 2024 (S.T. Case No.36 of 2025) registered for the offence under section 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, pending before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Lohardaga. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is juvenile and aged about 16 years at the time of alleged crime. He further submits that the allegations are made of Arms Act and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He next submits that the arms has been recovered from the possession of Rajesh Kumar who has been granted regular bail in B.A. No. 5726 of 2025 and another co-accused person has been granted regular bail in B.A. No.2896 of 2025. He then submits that the petitioner is being represented by his mother and his mother is ready to give any undertaking to the effect that the petitioner will not be exposed to any moral, physical and psychological danger and he then submits that the learned court has rejected the bail application of the petitioner only on the ground of social investigation report to the effect that the petitioner will be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent State appearing through Video Conferencing (V.C) submits that the learned court has rightly passed the order, however, she is not disputing the fact that the arms were recovered from the possession of one Rajesh Kumar who has been granted regular bail as aforesaid. 5. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was aged about 16 years at the time of alleged crime. 5. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was aged about 16 years at the time of alleged crime. The petitioner is in remand home since 23.10.2024 and is being represented by his mother and his mother is ready to give any undertaking to the effect that the petitioner will not be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further, the arms were recovered from the possession of one Rajesh Kumar who has been granted regular bail as well as one another co-accused who has also been granted regular bail as aforesaid and the learned court has been pleased to reject the bail application of the petitioner only on the ground of social investigation report. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 8. In view of above discussions, the Court is satisfied that the reasoning and conclusion of the learned appellate court to the effect that the petitioner will come in association of the dreaded criminals and there is likelihood of the petitioner being fell into moral, physical and psychological danger if released on bail, not founded on reasonable grounds, and 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 and 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 learned court has failed to give reasons on three contingencies for declining the bail to the revisionist. The findings recorded by the learned court do not appear to be good ground, and in that view of the matter, order dated 12.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge, (Children Court), Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2025 whereby the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected in connection with Lohardaga P.S. Case No.210 of 2024 (S.T. Case No.36 of 2025), pending before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge- II, Lohardaga is, hereby, set-aside, and the present criminal revision petition is allowed. 9. Let the revisionist who is in observation home since 23.10.2024 be released on bail via assurance and surety given by his natural guardian/mother (namely Chameli Kumari) in connection with Lohardaga P.S. Case No.210 of 2024 (S.T. Case No.36 of 2025) to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Lohardaga, subject to the following conditions: (i) Natural guardian/mother 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/ mother 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/ mother will report to the Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month commencing with the first Monday of September, 2025, 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, Lohardaga, on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine. 10. 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. 11. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist through his natural guardian/mother. 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). 12 This criminal revision petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.