M.I. Khan & G.C. Chattarjee, Public Prosecutor, for State M.B. SHARMA, J.—This application for bail was filed in this Court under Sec. 439 Cr. P.C. The circumstances leading to this bail application are in F.I.R. No. 108/1987 relating to the famous Divrala matter. The accused-petitioner is the real brother of deceased Mal Singh, husband of Roop Kanwar he was arrested alongwith other persons. Because the age of the accused petitioner Pushpendra Singh was less than 16 years and he is a child within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of Rajasthan Children Act, 1970 (in short, the Act), an application was filed before the Children Court (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Sikar was filed under Section 18 of the Act for bail. That application was opposed on behalf of the State and the learned Children Court under its order dated September 14, 1987 while refusing bail to the accused petitioner ordered that the petitioner be sent to observation home during the investigation of the case. An appeal against the aforesaid order was filed under Sec. 37 of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge Sikar under his order dated September 18, 1987 dismissed the appeal. The petitioner filed this application under S. 439 Cr P.C. 2. A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General that an application under Section 439 Cr. P. C. is not maintainable as under the aforesaid Act a revision lies to this Court. He further con tends that all the State Acts have been repealed and now Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (for short, the Juvenile Act) has come into force on October 2, 1987. Even under the Juvenile Act a revision lies to this Court under Section 38. Thus, the contention of Mr. Khan is that revision lies to this court and an application under Sec. 439 Cr. P. C. does not lie. 3. It may be stated that this objection was taken by the learned Additional Advocate General on the last date and an application was filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his application under Sec. 439 Cr. P. C. may be treated as a revision petition. That application is also to be disposed of. It may be stated that if the application under Sec. 439 Cr. P. C. is treated as a revision petition there is no dispute that it shall still be within limitation. P. C. may be treated as a revision petition. That application is also to be disposed of. It may be stated that if the application under Sec. 439 Cr. P. C. is treated as a revision petition there is no dispute that it shall still be within limitation. It is within limitation not only on the date of its presentation, but even today it is in limitation. 4. The first question is as to whether when a revision lies to this court an application under Sec. 439 Cr. P. C. will lie to this court or not? A bare reading of Sec. 439 Cr. P. C. will show that it contains special powers of this court as well as the court of Sessions regarding bail and therefore notwithstanding the fact that revision lies against the order of the Sessions Judge this court can under Sec 439 Cr. P. C. consider bail application and dispose it of on merits. It may be stated that at best it may be said that there are two options open to a child within the meaning of Sec. 2 (d) of the Act either to file a revision against the appellate order of the Sessions Judge or apply under Sec. 439 Cr. P. C. It is a right of the child, accused of a non bailable offence to be released on bail w ith or without sureties and bail can only be refused to him by the Children Court if there appears to be reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any notorious criminal or expose him to moral danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is only when a child after having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) of Sec. 18 of the Act by the officer in — charge of the Police station such officer shall cause him to be kept in an observation home in the prescribed manner, but not in a police station or jail, until he can be brought before a Childrens Court. Under-sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act when such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Childrens Court, it shall instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the provisions of the Act are analogous to the provisions contained in the Juvenile Act. A perusal of either Sec. 18 of the Act or Juvenile Act will show that generally a child arrested for-non-bailable offence shall be released on bail unless it appears to the Childrens Court that his release is likely to bring him into association with any notorious criminal or expose him to moral danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. It has already been said earlier that notwithstanding the fact that an order under Sec. 18 of the Act or Juvenile Act made by the appellate court is subject to revision by this court, the provisions of Sec. 439 Cr. P. C. will still be attracted. Either under the provisions of the Act or Juvenile Act the Court will have to see whether a child arrested for non-bailable offence should be released on bail or not. 5. The Childrens Court has declined the release on bail of the accused-petitioner who is admittedly a child within the meaning of Sec. 2 (d) of the Act on the ground that the offence is of serious nature and other accused-persons have not been arrested. A ground has also been taken that the case is triable by the court of Sessions. The learned court forgot that so far as the child is concerned, even the Sessions court cannot try him and he has to be tried by the Childrens Court either under the Act or under the Juvenile Act. Learned appellate court in its order dated September 18, 1987 has no doubt said that in case the accused petitioner Pushpendra Singh is allowed to remain in the custody of his parents in village Diverala, then he being a boy of tender age, might believe in the glorification of Sati instead to hate it and it will affect adversely on his mental development. 6. In my opinion these reasons do not appear to be sound. 6. In my opinion these reasons do not appear to be sound. No doubt Pushpendra Singh is aged about 16 years and as such he has reached the age of understanding and he can not be said to be of the tender age and will not be effected by these considerations. 7. Mr. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General at the feg-end contends that it is not must that a child below age of 16 years should be released on bail. It is in the discretion of the court and taking into consideration the fact that it was the accused-petitioner who lit fire to the pyre, he should not be released on bail. As per the case of the prosecution, there were other members of the family and possibly the accused must have acted under their influence, if he has acted so at all. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case so far as the accused petitioner who is admittedly a child under the provisions of Sec. 2 (d) of the Act, is concerned, in my opinion, it is not a case where bail should have been declined to him and so far as keeping him in observation home is concerned, the least said about observation homes is the best it will be. 8. I am of the opinion that it will be in the interest of child not only for his physical development but also mental development that he is released on bail, instead of being sent to observation home. 9. Consequently, I allow this application and it is directed that the accused-petitioner Pushpendra Singh shall be released on bail on his guardian furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties each in the amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance in that court on all dates of hearings and as and when called upon to do so. One of the conditions of the bail bonds shall be that he will not indulge in glorification of Sati during the period he remains on bail. The above condition shall be incorporated in the personal bond.