Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. Counsel prays that the petitioner is juvenile and has been so determined by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Court, Ludhiana vide order dated October 5, 2001, annexed herein as Annexure P-1. However, the Court declined bail to the petitioner vide order dated October 23, 2001 and held as under : "We have considered the above submissions put forward on behalf of Counsel for juvenile in conflict with law. Although the nature and gravity of offence is not to be looked into while dealing with bail matter in case of juvenile in conflict with law, yet at the same time it is to be seen that such concession of bail would not bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. In view of the given facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the juvenile if granted concession of bail at this stage, would expose him to moral danger as the offences which he allegedly committed involve moral turnpitude. The accused in such like offences are looked down upon as depraved persons by the society. Otherwise also as it has been already submitted in the bail application itself that the whole family of the juvenile has been implicated him proper care and custody is not assured outside if released. In these facts and circumstances, it would not be in the interest of justice to release him on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is declined." 2. Ordinarily, the petitioner should have presented an appeal under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 before the Court of Sessions within the period of 30 days of the passing of this order, but for some reason no appeal was filed and juvenile continues to remain in custody. 3. This petition under Section 439, Cr.P.C. is hereby treated as a revision under Section 53 of the Act. Notice of Advocate General, Punjab has been accepted by Mrs. R.K. Nihalsinghwala, Assistant Advocate General. 4. Denial of bail to a juvenile is only under very exceptional circumstances when it appears to the Court that release is likely to bring the juvenile into association with known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or if his release would defeat the ends of justice. R.K. Nihalsinghwala, Assistant Advocate General. 4. Denial of bail to a juvenile is only under very exceptional circumstances when it appears to the Court that release is likely to bring the juvenile into association with known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or if his release would defeat the ends of justice. It simply cannot be understood how release of the juvenile in this case would expose him to moral danger because the offences which he had allegedly committed involved "moral turnpitude." 5. The question the Court should have put to itself was whether detention of a juvenile would be more detrimental to his moral, physical or psychological health as opposed to his release on bail and return to the security of his home and love of his family. The Court completely misdirected itself by denying bail to the juvenile. The juvenile has already suffered incarceration in this case since April, 2001. It is true that the juvenile is being detained in Borstal Institution and Juvenile Jail but even so the grounds for denying the bail are not valid. A juvenile should be in the care and custody of his extended family even if his parents are in custody as appears to be the case herein. Moreover, an offence under Section 304-B, I.P.C. is such an offence where often times even a comparatively meek and a mild person can get involved when the complainant casts the net wide enough to name the entire family including married sister-in-law of the deceased and unmarried siblings of the husband of the deceased, and in some cases even juvenile relatives. Therefore, it does not appear to be a case of a juvenile who will be looked down upon as a depraved person by the society if released on bail. It may have been an altogether different matter if the juvenile had committed heinous crimes like rape and murder and belonged to a family with a history of criminal acts and unlawful behaviour. In such an eventuality denial of bail may have been justified but it would be totally unjustified in the present case. 6. Resultantly, the order of learned Juvenile Court dated October 23, 2001 is hereby set aside. The juvenile shall be admitted to bail on furnishing adequate surety to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Juvenile Court, Ludhiana.