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 the delinquent on bail. 3. Briefly stated that the facts of the prosecution story are that an FIR No. 76/2008 was lodged by one Mohan Lal on 06.08.2008 at P.S. Sandwa alleging inter alia that today in the morning at 5'0 clock when Ls wife got up, she found that her daughter-Komal was not there in the house. They had every suspicion that her minor daughter had been enticed away by Mohd. Sadique. On the basis of aforesaid written report, a case for offence under Secs. 363, 366, 376 and 120-B I.P.C. was registered and the investigation commenced. 4. The police after completion of investigation filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for offence under Secs. 363, 366, 367 and 120-B I.P.C., however, considering the age of delinquent at the time of occurrence of be below 18 years (his date of birth being 15.05.1993) he was detained and produced before the J.J.Court, where the application filed by him under Sec. 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short 'J. J. Act' ahead), which was rejected and then the appeal against the said order too has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, hence this revision petition has been filed. 5. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Courts below have erred in rejecting the prayer for the release of delinquent on bail only on the count that the offence alleged against the juvenile is of serious nature and further taking into consideration the facts of the case, it was observed that to release him on bail is not in the interest of the delinquent himself. It was urged that in case of a juvenile the reasons assigned cannot be a ground for rejection of the bail application. It was urged that in case of a juvenile the reasons assigned cannot be a ground for rejection of the bail application. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that as per Section 12 of the J.J.Act, a delinquent's prayer for his release on bail 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. 6. It was further contended that the incident took place on 06.08.2008 and admittedly the petitioner was juvenile on that dale as his date of birth being 15.05.1993 as such, the police has filed challan in Juvenile Court it was stated that from the facts and other material brought on record, no offence as alleged are made out. The delinquent is in custody since 14.08.2008 and after investigation challan has been filed, no further investigation is pending and the trial of the case is likely to take a long time, thus, it was prayed that the revision petition may kindly be allowed and the delinquent may be enlarged on bail. 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 . On the basis of the aforesaid submissions again a prayer was made to accept the revision petition and to enlarge the delinquent on bail during the pendancy of trial. 7. Learned Public .Prosecutor opposed the revision stating that the delinquent should not be released on bail. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material available on record, the citation 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 1.1. 7. Learned Public .Prosecutor opposed the revision stating that the delinquent should not be released on bail. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material available on record, the citation 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 1.1. Act, the position is 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 have not appreciated the things in the light of the law laid down in Sec. 12 of the 1.1. 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 perused the record and considered the other contentions raised with regard to the merit of case but as they are not relevant, therefore, no comment is being made. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition is allowed. The order of Juvenile Justice Board as well as the appellate Court refusing to release the delinquent on bail are hereby quashed and set aside and it is directed that delinquent-Mohd Sadique be released on bail provided his father Hakim Mohd. furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- along with an undertaking that he will keep his son away from criminals and shall also restrain him from carrying out any anit-social activities, with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs. 15,000/- each to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board with the stipulation that on all the subsequent dates of hearing he will produce the delinquent before the said Board or any other Court during the pendency of trial and shall keep him away from criminal activities and will take look after of the delinquent.Revision Petition Allowed. *******