ORDER T.S. Doabia, J. 1. The legal issue which has been raised in this petition preferred under section 38 of the Juvenile Justice Act of 1986. (here-in-after referred to as the Act), is whether the Juvenile Court is competent to grant bail when an offence is such regarding which bail could only granted only by this Court or the Court of Sessions. The precise argument which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent Suraj Singh Tomar has committed an offence u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. According to him, this case is covered by section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, a juvenile court which is presided over by a judicial Officer, who is not Sessions Judge, was not competent to grant bail. 2. It is not in dispute that an enquiry as to whether respondent no. 2 is a juvenile for the purpose of the Act of 1986 is pending determination before the Juvenile Court. The question arises whether the Juvenile Court is competent to consider an application for the grant of bail and pass orders releasing on bail a person claiming to be a juvenile and when the question regarding the status of person i.e. whether he is juvenile or not is under consideration. 3. As to how a delinquent juvenile is to be dealt with in the matter of granting bail has been dealt with in section 18 of the 1986 Act. For facility of reference this section be noticed :- 18. Bail and custody of juveniles :- (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence and apparently a juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a juvenile court, such person shall, not withstanding anything contained in the Cr. P. C. 1973, 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 appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. (2) When such person having been arrested is not released by the not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept in an observation home or a place of safety in the prescribed manner (but not in a police station or jail) until he can be brought before a juvenile court. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the juvenile court it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order. 4. A bare reading of the above provision indicates that if a person who "appearently appear to be juvenile" and is arrested or detailed with regard to an offence punishable under the law, then his case for bail can be considered by the Juvenile Court. It be seen that the word used in section 18 (3) is "apparently a juvenile", this indicates that all that the Court has to see is that a prima-fice a reasonable conclusion can be drawn with regard to the age of a person. There is no limitation vis-a-viz nature of offence. In this case, the enquiry is pending. The question as to whether the respondent no. 2 is a juvenile or not is yet to be decided. It was only when the petitioner appeared as a juvenile, the question regarding grant of bail was considered. 5. While examining the question of grant of bail the juvenile Court is to consider the following factors. (i) Circumstances under which offence was committed. (ii) Nature of offence. (iii) Exposure to moral danger is a paramount consideration. If detention is likely to degrade the human values in the delinquent then discretion can be exercised. (iv) the paramount consideration is that hope to reform a delinquent should not be become a faint reality. 6. Where an offence is heinous the prayer for bail can be refused. Such was the view expressed in Kalyan v. State of Rajasthan (1981) Cri. L.J. 1472. The bail was refused where the Act attributed to the delinquent was ruthless and merciless. However one cannot loose right of what was said by the Supreme Court of India in Munna and others etc. Such was the view expressed in Kalyan v. State of Rajasthan (1981) Cri. L.J. 1472. The bail was refused where the Act attributed to the delinquent was ruthless and merciless. However one cannot loose right of what was said by the Supreme Court of India in Munna and others etc. v. State of U.P. and others (1982) Cri. L. J. 620. The need to keep a Juvenile away from the company of hardened criminal was stressed. In this regard, it was observed. It is therefore clear that when a child is arrested for an offence and is not released on bail, he cannot be sent to jail but he must be detained in a place of safety as defined in S.2 sub-sec. (9) of the Act. The inhibition against sending a child to jail does not depend upon any proof that he is a child under the age of 16 years but as soon as it appears that a person arrested is apparently under the age of 16 years this inhibition is attracted. The reason for this inhibition lies in the court solicitude which the law entertains for juveniles below the age of 16 years. The law is very much concerned to see that juveniles do not come into conduct with hardened criminals and their chances of reformation are not blighted by contact with criminal offenders. The law throws a cloak of protection round juveniles and seeks to isolate them from criminal offenders, because the emphasis placed by the law is not on incarceration but on reformation. It was further observed :-"We would strongly impress upon the magistrates in the State of Uttar Pradesh and what we say here must apply mutatis mutandis to the magistrates in the other parts of the country where the children Acts are in force, that they must be extremely careful to see that no person apparently under the age of 16 years is sent to jail. 7. The above is the paramount consideration. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned order. This petition is without merit and is dismissed.