"The question arises is how far the facts and circumstances mentioned/observed by the Juvenile Justice Board/Appellate Court may justify refusal of bail. In other words, whether the aforesaid facts may form an edifice to bring this case within the restrictive confines of III part of proviso to Section- 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 for declining bail? Yet in other words- whether and if yes, to what extent the nature of the offence and merits of the case may be of utility in matters of bail to juvenile considering settled legal position that ordinarily the nature of offence and the merits of a case are not to be seen. Definitely, no separate inquiry is contemplated by the legislature for the purpose of application of this part of law, i.e., III part of proviso to Section-12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The Court is not supposed to look for any material outside and is to depend obviously on prosecution paper and social investigation report as ordinarily no other material is available. This takes us back to the contours of the case (as reflected from prosecution paper) and individual circumstances of juvenile as reflected from social investigation report. And therefore, we traverse back to reach from where we started. And cannot but agree with the opinion of the court that nature of the case, and the merits thereof remain seminal and are in noway inconsequential, unmeaning or insignificant."
