JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent State and the victim/informant. 2. It transpires that both the cases are arising out of same F.I.R and that is why, both the matters are being heard together. 3. In Criminal Revision No.392 of 2025, prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 12.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2024,by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- Cum-Spl.Judge (Children’s Court), Gumla, and order dated 02.12.2023 rejecting the bail in Misc. Criminal Application No.1847 of 2023 in connection with Spl.G.R.Case No.106 of 2023, arising out of FIR Gumla PS Case No.163 of 2023 under section 376DA, 376DB, 323, 504 of IPC and section 4/6 of the POCSO Act, wherein the bail of the petitioners were rejected, the matter is pending in the court of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla. 4. In Criminal Revision No.1146 of 2024, prayer has been made for setting aside the judgment dated 4.01.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Children Court), Gumla in Criminal Appeal No.78 of 2023, which was filed challenging the bail rejection order dated 02.12.2023passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in Spt.G.R.Case No.106 of 2023, arising out of Gumla PS Case No.163 of 2023, pending before the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla. 5. Leaned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.392 of 2025, the petitioner no.1 are aged about 13 years and petitioner no.2 is aged about 15 years and in Criminal Revision No.1146 of 2024 the petitioner is aged about 13 years. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners who were at the time of alleged crime, were juvenile and allegation against the petitioners are heinous, however, the petitioners are in custody for approximately two years and four months and they have been taken in custody on 19.05.2023. He also refers to section 18 (1)(g) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act and further submits that the petitioner nos.1 and 2, in Criminal Revision No.392 of 2025, are being represented through natural guardian/Elder Brother, namely, Sumit Kerketta and natural guardian/Father, namely, Nandlal Lohra, respectively and the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.4611 of 2024 is being represented through his mother/natural guardian, namely, Siska Khadiyain. They further submit that the natural guardian/ elder brother of the petitioner no.1 in Cr.Rev.No.392 of 2025 and natural guardian/ Father represent these petitioners and petitioner in Cr.Rev.No.4611 of 2024 is being represented through his natural guardian/ mother, as aforesaid, are ready to undertake to the effect that these petitioners will not be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger. They next submit that these petitioners have spent substantial time in remand house and in view of that, they may kindly be granted bail. They submit that however the trial is going on. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the learned courts have rightly appreciated the fact and has rightly rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners. 8. Learned counsel for the informant in Cr.Rev. No.392 of 2025 opposed the prayer and submits that heinous crime has been made by the petitioners and in view of that, the petitioners may not be released on bail. He also submits that the victim compensation may kindly be directed to be paid to the victim. 9. In view of the above, it transpires that the allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature and the petitioners are in custody for about two years and four months and they are in remand home since 19.05.2023 and the petitioners are being represented through their natural guardians as noted in the argument of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and they are ready to give undertaking to the effect that petitioners will not be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger. Both the learned courts have been pleased to reject the bail application of the petitioners considering the gravity of the crime committed by the petitioners. 10. 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 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. 10. 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 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 13. In view of above discussions, the Court is not satisfied with 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, is not founded on reasonable grounds. 14. In view of the above discussion, the Court finds sufficient reason and conclusion of learned Magistrate/ Juvenile Justice Board that there is likelihood that the petitioners will come into the association of the persons due to which they will be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger, appears to be unwarranted or unreasonable ground. The gravity of allegation is only on the apprehension to the effect that they will be exposed to moral, physical or psychological danger and the bail has been rejected and mandatory provision of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act as well as other provisions relating to a juvenile declined to grant bail on the basis of unwarranted apprehension, appears to be not a good ground. In absence of any material on apprehension of reasonable ground that they will be exposed, it cannot be said that their release would defeat the end of justice and both the learned courts 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, order dated 12.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2024, by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- Cum-Spl.Judge (Children’s Court), Gumla, and order dated 02.12.2023 in Misc. The findings recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as appellate court are based on heinousness of the offence. Thus, order dated 12.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2024, by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- Cum-Spl.Judge (Children’s Court), Gumla, and order dated 02.12.2023 in Misc. Criminal Application No.1847 of 2023 in connection with Spl.G.R.Case No.106 of 2023, arising out of FIR Gumla PS Case No.163 of 2023 pending in the court of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla, and, judgment dated 4.01.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Children Court), Gumla in Criminal Appeal No.78 of 2023, which was filed challenging the order dated 02.12.2023 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla in Spt.G.R.Case No.106 of 2023, arising out of Gumla PS Case No.163 of 2023, pending before the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla are, hereby, set-aside and both these criminal revision petitions are allowed. 15. Let the revisionists who are in observation home since 19.05.2023 be released on bail via assurance and surety given by their natural guardian being, in case of petitioner nos.1 and 2, in Criminal Revision No.392 of 2025, being represented through natural guardian/Elder Brother, namely, Sumit Kerketta and natural guardian/Father, namely, Nandlal Lohra, respectively, and the petitioner in Criminal Revision No.4611 of 2024 being represented through his mother/natural guardian, namely, Siska Khadiyain in connection with Spl.G.R.Case No.106 of 2023, arising out of FIR Gumla PS Case No.163 of 2023 (in Cr.Rev. No.392 of 2025) and in Spt.G.R.Case No.106 of 2023, arising out of Gumla PS Case No.163 of 2023 (in Cr.Revision No.1146 of 2024), respectively, after furnishing personal bond of their Natural guardian/Elder Brother, Father and Mother, respectively, as aforesaid, with two sureties of their relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla, subject to the following conditions: (i) Natural guardian/Elder Brother, Father and Mother, respectively, as aforesaid in both the cases, will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the revisionists 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 they will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence. (ii) Natural guardian/Elder Brother, Father and Mother, respectively, as aforesaid, will further furnish an undertaking to the effect that the juveniles will pursue their study at the appropriate level which he would be encouraged to do besides other constructive activities and not be allowed to waste their time in unproductive and excessive recreational pursuits. (iii) Juvenile and Natural guardian/Elder Brother, Father and Mother, respectively, as aforesaid, will report to the Probation Officer on the first Monday of every calendar month commencing with the first Monday of November, 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 their social investigation report that would be submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board, Gumla, on such a periodical basis as the Juvenile Justice Board may determine. 16. Before imparting the judgment, it is necessary to point out that the identity of the juveniles in the present matter has been disclosed in the impugned judgment and order which violates the right to privacy and confidentiality of the juveniles 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. 17. The present revision has been filed by the revisionists through their natural guardian/elder brother, father and mother, respectively. The memo of parties discloses the name of the juveniles. The Registry is directed to conceal the names of the juveniles 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). 18. Both these Criminal Revision petitions are allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. 19. So far as victim compensation is concerned, it transpires that the trial is not concluded as yet, and in that view of the matter, the learned counsel for the informant will approach the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA), and the said Authority (JHALSA) will examine the prayer of the victim under the relevant Scheme, and if in light of the said relevant Scheme their cases are covered, the said Authority (JHALSA) will pass appropriate order, accordingly.