RAVINDRA SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is preferred by the revisionist Darpan being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27. 8. 2005, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2005, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the order dated 16. 7. 2005 passed by Juvenile Justice board, Meerut in Case Crime No. 97 of 2005 , under Sections 377, 506 IPC, P. S. Railway Road, district Meerut, by which the prayer for bail of the revisionist has been refused. ( 2 ) THE facts, in brief, of this case are that the F. I. R. of this case has been lodged by one Rinku against the applicant under Sections 377/506 I. P. C. on 21. 6. 2005 at 1. 45 P. M. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 20. 6. 2005 at about 11. 30 A. M. The allegation against the applicant is that he has committed an unnatural offence with Aakash aged about 5 years on 20. 6. 2005 at about 11. 30 AN on the roof of his house when its complaint was made by the first informant, a threat was extended to him. The revisionist took the plea of juvenile. He was medically examined by the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut on 25. 6. 2005, as per medical examination report, he was found aged about 16 years and subsequently he was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Judge on 2. 7. 2005, that order has not been challenged by the State of U. P. or the complainant of this case. The revisionist moved an application before the Juvenile Justice Board, meerut, with a prayer that he may be released en bail but the bail application of the revisionist has been rejected on 16. 7. 2005 by the Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut. Against that order the revisionist filed Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2005 the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions judge, Meerut on 27. 8. 2005. 7. 2005 by the Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut. Against that order the revisionist filed Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2005 the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions judge, Meerut on 27. 8. 2005. ( 3 ) HEARD Sri A. P. Mishra, learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A. G. A. ( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the Impugned orders are Illegal because neither the order of the Juvenile Justice Board nor the order of the appellate court shows that there was any material or substance for believing that the release of the revisionist is lively 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 as envisaged by Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000 which reads as under : 2 Ball of juvenile- (1)When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offeree, and apparently a Juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, not withstanding 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 ball with or without surety but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is lively to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him tomoral, 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 ball 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 bailunder Sub-section (l) 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. (3) When such person is not released on bailunder Sub-section (l) 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. ( 5 ) IT is opposed by learned A. G. A. by submitting that there is no illegality in the impugned orders because both the orders have been passed after considering all the facts and the circumstances of the case and the impugned orders are well reasoned. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A. and from the perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that the order declaring the revisionist to be a juvenile has not been challenged by the state of U. P. or the complainant, it has become final. The order refusing the bail by the Juvenile justice Board and appellate court shows that there was no material or substance for believing that the release of the revisionist is lively to bring him into the association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice as provided by Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act, 2000, therefore the impugned orders have not been passed in accordance with the provisions of law which are illegal and are hereby setaside. ( 7 ) IN view of the above discussions, the revision is allowed and the impugned orders dated 27. 8. 2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2005 and judgment and order dated 16. 7. 2005 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut in Case Crime no. 97 of 2005 are setaside. ( 8 ) LET revisionist be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond of his natural guardian and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, on the condition that he. 7. 2005 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut in Case Crime no. 97 of 2005 are setaside. ( 8 ) LET revisionist be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond of his natural guardian and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, on the condition that he. (1) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, (2) shall appear before the trial court on each and every date fixed by the court concerned; and (3) shall not come in association of any criminal and shall not involve in any other criminal act. . .