JUDGMENT 1. - This is a bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC, in which a student of 9th Class, aged about 14 years has been charged for offence under sections 376 and 511, IPC for attempting to commit rape with a girl aged about 10 years. 2. I have heard Mr. S.K. Jain appearing for the petitioner and Mr. O.P. Sharma, Public Prosecutor. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been charged to have attempted to commit rape, which is doubtful in the face of the fact that the incident is said to have taken place on 18-9-1986 at about 8.0 a.m , but the FIR has been lodged on 26-9-1986, which shows that there has been delay of 8 days. It is further pointed out that the learned trial court has completely ignored the fact about the age of the petitioner, even though this contention was raised in the trial court, which is evident from the order on record. He has further stressed that there are no marks of any external injury on the body of the prosecutrix which also indicates that the veracity of the complaint is doubtful. He has produced a certificate of the Govt School, Hindoli, in which the petitioner is studying, which shows that he is a student of 9th Class and his date of birth is 20-9-1972. This shows that the age of the petitioner is about 14 years. He has drawn my attention to section 2(d) of the Rajasthan Children Act. 1970, in which child has been defined to be a boy who has not attained the age of 16 years. Under section 18 of the above Act, it is provided that when any child is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a children court, he shall, not with standing any thing contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety. but he shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into the association with any notorious criminals or expose him to moral danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. but he shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into the association with any notorious criminals or expose him to moral danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. He therefore, prays that in view of the delay in filing of the FIR and the fact that the prosecutrix has no marks of external injury on her body what so ever and the provisions of the Rajasthan Children Act, 1970, the petitioner be given indulgence of bail under Section 438 Cr.PC. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand has contended that the delay in filing the FIR has been explained in the FIR itself and that the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy as he is charged to have attempted to commit rape with a minor girl. 5. It is very unfortunate that the petitioner is charged to have attempted to commit rape with a child of 10 years However the petitioner himself is also a child I and aged only 14 years of age. If he is arrested and allowed to remain in the company of criminals he will himself turn out to be a person of criminal tendencies. In such circumstances therefore, it is better to take a reformative view rather than punitive view. My attention has also been drawn to the authority of this Court in Gapal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan 1980 Cr.LR (Raj) 349 in which it was observed that on account of delay the repeal not only gets be rapt of the advantage of spontanity but danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version. This was a matter, in which there was delay of 4 days. 6. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of Children Act, 1970, I am of the opinion that it will be just and proper to give indulgence of bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr. PC. 7. It is therefore, directed the SHO/Arresting Officer/Investigation Officer Police Station Hindoli, Distt. Bundi shall release the accused petitioner Narsinghlal in the event of his arrest in FIR No. 120/86 registered at Police Station, Hindoli, provided a personal bond in the sum of Rs. PC. 7. It is therefore, directed the SHO/Arresting Officer/Investigation Officer Police Station Hindoli, Distt. Bundi shall release the accused petitioner Narsinghlal in the event of his arrest in FIR No. 120/86 registered at Police Station, Hindoli, provided a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- along with one surety in the like amount is filed on behalf of the petitioner by his father or guardian; with the following conditions: 1. that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; 2. that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer ; 3. that the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. Bail Granted. *******