Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-The instant criminal revision petition under Section 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, “the Act” hereinafter) read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”) is directed against the order dated 19.07.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Parbatsar (for short, “the Appellate Court”) in Criminal Misc. (Bail) Application No. 104/2005 filed by the petitioner under Section 52 of the Act, read with Section 439 of the Code, whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner through his guardian. Hence, this criminal revision petition. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant criminal revision are that petitioner Udaibhan Singh alias Bablu Singh moved before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar, before whom the petitioner was produced by the police in a criminal case arising out the FIR No. 137/2004, Police Station Pilwa, district Nagaur, for determination of his age under Section 49 of the Act as the petitioner claimed himself to be below 18 years of age on the relevant date of the occurrence. It appears from the order dated 10.05.2005 that by the order dated 12.04.2005 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 948/2005, this Court directed the Magistrate to conduct and complete the inquiry regarding the age of the petitioner within one month and submit the report. In compliance of the order dated 12.04.2005, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar conducted the inquiry and by the order dated 10.05.2005 determined the age of the petitioner and held him to be juvenile on the ground that on 111.2004, the alleged date of the occurrence, the petitioner had not attained the age of 18 years. Thus, the competent Court has determined the age of the petitioner and held him to be juvenile as defined under Sub-clause (k) of Section 2 of the Act. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Perused the order impugned and also the order dated 10.05.2005 whereby the competent Court has determined the age of the petitioner and held him to be juvenile. 4. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Perused the order impugned and also the order dated 10.05.2005 whereby the competent Court has determined the age of the petitioner and held him to be juvenile. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Section 12 of the Act, the petitioner may be released on bail as nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution to show that the release of the petitioner is likely to bring him into the association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. Section 12 of the Act reads as under:- .(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 Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) 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, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. .(2) When such person having been arrested is 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 only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board. .(3) When such person is not released on bail under Sub-section (1) by the Board 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.” 6. .(3) When such person is not released on bail under Sub-section (1) by the Board 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.” 6. From the bare reading of Section 12 of the Act, it is more than clear that the delinquent juvenile normally has to be released on bail with the exception that if there appears reasonable ground for believing that his release is likely to bring him into the association of any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. 7. In the impugned order, it appears that the Appellate Court though stated in the order that his release may bring him into the association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or it would defeat the ends of justice, but there appears to be no material, on the basis of which this conclusion has been arrived at. Section 12 of the Act starts with non-obstante clause i.e., by using the expression “notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force.” It is for the prosecution to bring on record such material, including the report of the Probation Officer, to show that the release of the delinquent juvenile on bail is likely to bring him into the association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. 8. Instant criminal case against the delinquent juvenile is based on circumstantial evidence. FIR against the delinquent juvenile and two others was lodged on the basis of suspicion. Apart from the petitioner, two other persons have also been challaned for the offence. In this view of the matter, the Appellate Court fell in error in dismissing the bail application filed by the petitioner through his guardian. In my opinion, the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ajmer, as well as the revisional Court fell in error in refusing to release the delinquent juvenile on bail. 9. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. In this view of the matter, the Appellate Court fell in error in dismissing the bail application filed by the petitioner through his guardian. In my opinion, the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ajmer, as well as the revisional Court fell in error in refusing to release the delinquent juvenile on bail. 9. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ajmer dated 13.07.2005, as well as the order of the Appellate Court dated 19.07.2005 are hereby set aside and it is directed that delinquent juvenile Udaibhan Singh alias Bablu Singh S/o Shri Vikram Singh alias Kajod Singh, be released on bail, provided his guardian furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ajmer with the stipulation that on all the subsequent dates of hearing, he shall produce the delinquent juvenile before the said Board or any other Court during pendency of the inquiry and his guardian shall keep proper look-after of the juvenile delinquent and keep him away from the company of known criminals.