JUDGMENT Honble A.K. Roopanwal, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 23-12-2006 passed by the Special Judge (Gangsters Act), Allahabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 2006, Jaswant Kumar Saroj v. State of U.P., whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist was dismissed. This was an appeal against the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Allahabad, dated 11-10-2006 whereby the prayer for bail moved by revisionist was refused. 2. I have heard Mr. A.P. Paul, learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the record. 3. Mr. Paul argued that the opinion of the appellate Court recorded in the impugned judgment dated 23-12-2006 is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) therefore, this judgment is liable to be set aside and the revision is liable to be allowed. I do feel that the argument has worth and this revision is liable to be allowed. 4. Section 12 of the Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile. There are (1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or (2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or (3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 5. Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail in Section 12 of the Act. 6. In view of the above, if we test the judgment and order passed by the appellate Court we would find that it is perfectly beyond the scope of Section 12 of the Act. 7. It has been opined by the appellate Court that the revisionist is not entitled to bail as he is charged with a serious offence like rape and secondly if he is released on bail, he would be deposed to danger by the victim party. I feel that both these considerations are not relevant considerations under Section 12 of the Act for rejection of the bail and the bail was wrongly refused by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appeal was also wrongly dismissed by the Court concerned. 8. Nothing has been shown, which could bring the case of the revisionist in any of the contingencies mentioned above and therefore, he is entitled to bail. 9. 8. Nothing has been shown, which could bring the case of the revisionist in any of the contingencies mentioned above and therefore, he is entitled to bail. 9. Consequently, the revision is allowed and the impugned orders dated 23-12-2006 and 11-10-2006 passed by the Courts below are set aside. It is directed that the revisionist shall be released on bail. In the Case Crime No. 162 of 2006 under Section 376, I.P.C. registered at Police Station Antoo, District Pratapgarh, on his executing two sureties each of Rs. Forty thousand to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Allahabad, one of such sureties will be the father of the child delinquent and if he is not alive then his nearer relative. ————