Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 1-4-1997 passed by C.J.M., Chatra who is a Court constituted under the Juvenile Justice Act through which the prayer of bail of this petitioner, Keshwar Sao, was rejected in C.R. Case No. 250/95. 2. It was contended on behalf of petitioner that in pursuance of the order dated 19th December 1996 passed in Crl. Revision No. 245/96 (R) a regular enquiry was made by the Juvenile Court i.e. the C.J.M. After considering the report of the medical board and other evidence the petitioner was declared as a Juvenile vide order dated 3rd March 1997. It was further contended that when the petitioner was declared as Juvenile, a prayer was made for granting bail in pursuance of Sec. 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act but this prayer was rejected mainly for the reason that the A.P.P. submitted that on earlier occasion the prayer of bail of the petitioner was rejected even by the High Court. 3. It was rightly contended on behalf of petitioner that the prayer of bail of this petitioner was rejected even upto the High Court and by that time no enquiry was made that the petitioner is a Juvenile and as such when the petitioner was declared as Juvenile then under Sec. 18 of the said Act the petitioner is definitely entitled for bail unless the trial Court comes to a conclusion that there appears reasonable ground for believing that the release of the petitioner 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. So there is mandatory provision that the petitioner should be released, on bail subject to the aforesaid proviso as laid, down under Sec. 18 of the said Act. It appears from the impugned order that the trial Court had not recorded any finding that release of the petitioner 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, and simply rejected the prayer of bail for the reason that earlier prayer of bail of the petitioner was rejected by the High Court. Meaning thereby the earlier rejection of the bail application was only an impediment in passing of the order. 4. Meaning thereby the earlier rejection of the bail application was only an impediment in passing of the order. 4. Under the circumstances the whole order appears to be not in consonance with the provision of Sec. 18 of the said act because, earlier prayer of bail of the petitioner was rejected treating him to be a major and the moment the petitioner has been declared as Juvenile so his prayer for bail will be considered in view of provision of Sec. 18 of the said Act and the earlier order of the High Court will not be any impediment, and the petitioner can be, released on bail unless the trial Court will record a specific finding that the release of the petitioner 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. 5. Accordingly, this application is allowed in the manner indicated above and the matter is again remanded back to the learned C.J.M., Chatra who is, the Juvenile Court for passing a fresh order of bail in the light of the observations made above.