JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity and correctness of orders passed by the Courts below refusing to release him on bail. 3. There is allegation of offence under Secs. 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. against the petitioner (who was juvenile at the time of commission of offence i.e. 18.06.2008 and his date of birth is 20.06.1990) who is presently lodged at Central Jail, Udaipur. 4. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.06.2008 the complainant's sister was kidnapped by Mahendra Kumar (Petitioner) and Bhagwati Lal with the intention of marrying her with Mahendra. The prosecutrix in her statement recorded on 10.07.2008 gave out that on 18.0.2008 in the day she went alone for collecting fire-wood in 'oran ka jangal' there, Mahendra Kumar met her and he enticed her with the intention of marrying. They remained together for nearly four days in a 'jungle' (forest), where Mahendra committed forcible intercourse with her, thereafter on 24.06.2008, Mahendra forcibly took her to Udaipur in a jeep and there he got snapped few photographs with her, he used to commit rape with her and she was not allowed to go out of the room. From Udaipur, Mahendra took her to Bhilwara at her maternal uncle's house and there, the accused kept her as his wife and kept on committing intercourse with her. On 07.07.2008 the Incharge of 'Choki' came along with her brother came and then they left her at her parental house. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case vide FIR No. 78/2008 was registered at P.S. Jhadole. District Udaipur for the offence under Secs. 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and the investigation commenced. The police after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences considered his age under 18 years before the J.J. Court. Thereafter tho application filed under Sec. 12 was refused and the appeal against the said order has also been dismissed, hence this revision was filed. 6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Courts below have erred in rejected the prayer for the release delinquent on bail only on the count that the offence alleged against the juvenile is of serious nature and during the course of time he has crossed the age of 18 years, therefore, he does not remain juvenile. It was urged that in case of a juvenile the reasons assigned cannot be a grounds for rejection of the bail application. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that as per Sec. 12 of the Juvenile (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short 'J.J. Act' ahead), a delinquent's prayer could only be rejected in case the release of juvenile is likely to come in association with known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice but no such material has been produced by the prosecution so that any adverse inference can be drawn, therefore, the orders passed by the Courts below are not sustainable and are liable to be quashed and set aside. It was mainly contended that the incident took place on 18.06.2008 and admittedly was juvenile on that date as his date or birth being 20.06.1990, as such he ought to be tried by Juvenile Court and the delinquent should not be kept in Central Jail with hardened criminals. It was also contended that there is delay of 10 days in lodging the FIR and no satisfactory explanation has been assigned for not filling the FIR earlier, that also creates a doubt in the prosecution story. Lastly it was stated that the petitioner is in custody since 11.08.2008, thus, it was prayed that the revision petition may kindly be allowed and the delinquent be enlarged on bail, it was also submitted that even on marit of the case, the charges of kidnapping and rape are not tenable. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention cited the decision of this Court given in the case of Jeetu Ram through his father natural guardian Fusaram S/o Manga Ram v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2005(1) RDD page 340 and decision of Hon'ble Apex Court given in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2005 SCC (Crl) 742 . In Pratap Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the "reckoning date of the determination of the age of the juvenile is the date of an offence and not the date when he is produced before the authority or in the Court." 7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition. 8. In Pratap Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the "reckoning date of the determination of the age of the juvenile is the date of an offence and not the date when he is produced before the authority or in the Court." 7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material available on record, the citations produced from the side of delinquent and the relevant Sec. 12 of the J.J. Act. 9. From the perusal of the Sec. 12 of the J.J. Act, the position of very clear that bail could only be refused when the Court comes to the conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release of juvenile 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. From the perusal of the record such type of material is missing. The learned Courts below not appreciated the things in the light of the law laid down in Sec. 12 of the J.J. Act, therefore, the orders passed by the Courts below are not sustainable. In the case of a juvenile it is not much relevant to look into the gravity of offence. I have also seen the statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the police. She remained with the accused for a considerable period. She travelled to Udaipur and Bhilwara but at no point of time she raised any sort of hue and cry nor she made a complaint to anybody regarding his alleged abduction of forcible rape etc. 10. I have also considered the other contentions. It is settled law that the age of delinquent is to be seen at the time of commission of offence. The finding of learned Sessions Judge in this respect is, therefore, not sustainable. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition is allowed. The orders of Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate Court refusing to release the delinquent on bail on hereby quashed and set aside and it is directed that the petitioner Mahendra Kumar S/o Khyali Lal be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. The orders of Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate Court refusing to release the delinquent on bail on hereby quashed and set aside and it is directed that the petitioner Mahendra Kumar S/o Khyali Lal be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- along with an undertaking that he will keep away form criminal and also any other sort of anti-social activities with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs. 15,000/- each (of which one should be of his father) to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board with the stipulation that on all the subsequent dates of hearing, the delinquent will produce himself before the said Board or any other during the pendency of trial and shall keep him away from criminal activities and his father shall look after the delinquent and shall keep away from the company of known criminals.Revision Petition Allowed. *******